And they could be two brothers or two sisters anyway, which precludes any incestuous pregnancy.

So I’ll ask again – what basis do atheists, liberals and moral relativists have for the intolerance, bigotry and Dark Ages mentality they show when they denounce full blown, incestuous, unprotected anal intercourse between two adult brothers as ‘gross’?

If you cannot give a satisfactory answer, then why is consensual incest still unlawful if acts such as homosexuality or even bestiality are now legal?

Why do you still cling to old-fashioned, outdated, archaic laws – which more progressive and tolerant groups are even now seeking to abolish?

What basis do you have for acting and thinking like such prudish, sexually intolerant fascists – like those religious bigots who think homosexuality is a sin in God’s eyes?

Or do you admit that, deep down inside where you don’t dare look, you are influenced by irrational and illogical religion-based taboos against incest?

“A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine.”
From Khomeini’s book, “Tahrirolvasyleh”

That exactly describes relative morality, Che. Right and wrong are transient, subjective, determined by people according to their own whims and fleeting decisions.

Whereas theists subscribe to absolute morality – what their god or scriptures say define right and wrong, regardless of time, place, culture or public opinion.

This post intends to point out that the same ‘discrimination’ that religious believers are accused of regarding homosexuality (which their beliefs forbid) is also practised by irreligious people regading incest (about which they should hold no beliefs, or beliefs about anything at all).

I was mistaken – I thought you were critiqueing atheism on the grounds that it had an absence of morality.

I got your post wrong. My aplogies.

Just to clarify: Are you saying that the people who accuse religious belivers of behaving discriminatorially towards homosexuals are hypocrites because, even as they deny the religious believer’s absolute belief that homosexuality is immoral, those accusers themselves buy into an absolute morality regarding incest?

(Wow. That was a bastard of a sentence.)

If that is the case then this is actually something I can get behind – although possibly for all the wrong reasons from your perspective. :D

I’ve mentioned this on a few other blogs I’ve posted at – that I think that the latest wave of fashionable pop-athesim is woefully limp-wristed in its approach. It doesn’t go anywhere near far enough for my liking. I reject absolute morality – but I also reject deliberate fence-sitters.

Just to clarify: Are you saying that the people who accuse religious belivers of behaving discriminatorially towards homosexuals are hypocrites because, even as they deny the religious believer’s absolute belief that homosexuality is immoral, those accusers themselves buy into an absolute morality regarding incest?

Che, you nailed it right on the head of the pin! The angels dancing there had to jump for their lives.

See below for my explanation to chillin which you already sussed.

—————————————-

That’s a weird way to attack us, Scott. I’ve never really heard any theist or atheist arguing over incest.

But, yeah, I don’t find it wrong as long as the two are consenting adults.

What now?

chillin… Nothing actually. Congrats on your open-mindedness.

My post is just to point out that if one does not subscribe to an absolute set of morals, but instead follows humanist principles, then incest should be legal, permissible and completely accepted.

Yet that is seldom the case in the real world – exposing a flagrant hypocrisy.

Are atheist humanists who feel disgust about incest then not as intolerant and bigoted as Christians who consider homosexuality a sin in God’s eyes?

“But, yeah, I don’t find it wrong as long as the two are consenting adults”
i agree, it should be ok as long as its consenting adults, I agree with chillin, in that it more or less just a knee-jerk reaction, because the fact that it is not all that typical a thing to hear about, so when it does happen, its blown way out of proportion.

Even atheists can’t get certain things out of their mind that God has hard wired in. I teach high school, so consider a 16 year old boy saying for instance that there is no God. There is also, therefore, no such thing as right and wrong. Absolute truth does not exist. Then when his iPod gets stolen, we have to find who took it, and punish the offender, because stealing is wrong. Morality can’t be something dreamed up in the minds of religious people if even Bill Mar (spelled wrongly) believes a grown man raping a 14 girl is wrong. If there is no morality except in our imaginations, nothing can be “wrong.” But there are things that are wrong, and on that we all agree, ergo morality must come from somewhere else in the universe. I wish even the devout atheist would admit that somewhere else could be God, even if he doesn’t believe it himself.

Well my name’s Maryanne Beth.
And my view on the subject is that
Incest is not immoral or wrong.

Its just something that happens– a way of life for some more than others.

I am 23 years old and I have consensual sex with my 28 year old brother Thomas-Michael. Hopefully one day marriage.

We first began having sex when I was 14 (Thomas was 19) but we first began our true relationship when I was about 15 years old (and Thomas was 20). I had been struggling with boy “issues” as every teenage girl does. And I had given up on guys and my brother saw how these so called “boyfriends” would treat me and how I was hurting. So he became my pillar. Fighting away all and every evil. Whenever I hurt, he hurt.. Whenever I was happy… so was he. And this was not just us being siblings.. It was our inter selves connecting and maturing together.

It was never a plan (on either side) for us to become a couple. The thought never even enter our minds. And to unearth a curiousity– No. No one else in in our family, including intermediate, were into another family member.

We at first had the ackwardness of “Should I really feel this way??” but all was surpassed we he kissed me for the first time. We were at our homecoming dance and I had ran to the girls bathroom because my date treated me horribly. And my brother must have caught glimpse of it. I was crouching on the floor in tears and I looked up and saw my brother kneeling in front of me. Then it happened– he kissed me and saved my life. And so began our sexual relationship as well. Thank God he was a senior or it might have been really freaky to other people.

We have been together ever since. My brother is my first and only,,, we have had 10 wonderous and beautiful years so far.

And to think… we are catholics. =]

Ps.
I’m in love and incredibly happy. So it can’t be soooo wrong?? Now can it.

Well, to the moral relativist (i.e. atheist), there is no basis to call it wrong or right. It all depends on who you ask.

But to the religious Christian believer who subscribes to the notion of God’s laws as eternal, binding and unpetitionable, I do believe incest is still considered a sin by Christianity.

No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. – Leviticus 18:6 & 9

In you one man commits a detestable offense with his neighbor’s wife, another shamefully defiles his daughter-in-law, and another violates his sister, his own father’s daughter. – Ezekiel 22:11

Paul notes the church’s disapproval of incest between a son and his father’s wife in 1st Corinthians 5, but does not mention sibling incest.

However, as his words echo the Old Testament views on incest found in Leviticus 18:14 and Leviticus 20:11, it can be assumed that other rulings on incest still remained in the early church.

Besides that, it can also be assumed that Old Testament laws regarding incest are still meant to be adhered to in spirit by Christians, as Jesus did not include incest (or homoxesuality or bestiality) in His long list of social reformations of Jewish norms of gender, race and socio-economy.

Whether one is in love and happy does not make something right or wrong under absolute morality – mainstream Christianity still does not view happy and loving homosexuals, zoophiliacs or pedophile pairings as pleasing to God’s eyes.

Just my honest opinion backed by Scripture.

Taht said, I have no valid humanist argument against incest (as I flesh out in the post above) and nothing against you personally.

I am an atheist, and I will answer your question.
First off, you are an idiot for assuming that atheist think its okay to allow incest.
Second off, you asked a question with a pre-determined statement, which basically means that you directed a false statement towards someone and forced them to asnwer it.

Here is an example – “Does your mother know you are gay?”, either way a person decides to asnwer, you have already made a statement, and the only thing a person can do is rephrase your question to, “I am not gay, so we do not have to worry about my mother”

So let me remind you, there is a direct correlation between intelligence and believing in god. The dumber a person is, the more likely he/she is to believe in god. Please ask intelligent questions without a pre-determined statement.

ReadMePlease: you have been read and FOUND WANTING. Perhaps you need to remember what your elementary school .teacher taught you about reading: understand what you are reading, digest it (which means letting the data go through that faculty in your skull called a brain) and comment (but only if you have something significant to say). Please refrain from insults cos they have a way of coming back to you. Return to Sender..you know what I mean?

I’d like a few instanced of atheists who are repelled by the idea of adult incest, homosexual or not. I myself feel it could be very dangerous for family dynamics, and of course the issue of children is not relevant of the incest participants are gay. We are hard-wired by our culture to try to preserve family bonds. That’s why incest with no possibility of pregnanacy strikes us as wrong – becuase it could threaten the family. Let’s postulate a brother and sister who are orphans, and have no other family members – further adding that the female can’t get pregnant. Then in that case I can’t see the harm, though personally, I am not in the slightest bit sexually attracted to either ofmy siblings.

But I am convinced that this question is another ‘straw man’ question set up by those wo try to paint atheists as people who wish to undermine the entire world as we know it. Let me guess, the questioner is from USA?

In an era determined to find thematic paradigms in everything, consensual incest is a threat to organized, structured morality. It’s an inconvenience, albeit a small one, and the pantheon of history has shunned it making it axiomatic that all should be against it. Consideration must be given the age of the participants and their ability to evaluate the action(s) they might take. As with anything, having some concept of the predictable outcome is a good idea. If one doesn’t realize that a rock thrown at glass will break it, then inferences about that person’s ability to understand the consequences of their action(s) are meaningless. To some this may seem a fringe issue but the actualities are that many persons are conflicted about it at some point. Psychiatry reveals that many have suppressed desires, sometimes given amorphous form as dreams, about consensual incest. One suspicions it will never be accepted but, equally, it will never go away.

[…] that is a prerequisite already present. Intergenerational fairness documenting and generating a simple feedback loop by [▼a]-nalogy in an adaptive preserved order of the mechanisms evolutionary function regulators […]

Far worse things happened in the Dark Ages than denouncing behavior as “gross.” Words vs torture during the Inquisition, people being burnt at the stake, etc … these are difficult things to mistake!

Could you explain one of the questions you asked? I’m a little confused by “Or do you admit that, deep down inside where you don’t dare look, you are influenced by irrational and illogical religion-based taboos against incest?” Specifically, the religion and taboo part bewilder me. What do you think of:

Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. Genesis 19:32-36

Does Paul give a father permission to marry his own daughter in 1 Corinthians 7:36-38?

Abraham and Sarah were half-brother and sister (Genesis 20:12).

Isaac and Rebekah were second cousins (Genesis 22-20ff.; 24:4).

Jacob was wed to the daughters of Laban, his mother’s brother (Genesis 24:43); his first cousin.

Et cetera. On the other hand, in Leviticus, we’re told incest should be punished with death. Like with other questions, the answer we get from the holy books seems contradictory.

How come so many total noob wannabe polemicists make this lame mistake? Do you guys just search for some website and copy-paste what the author copy-pasted from someone else’s copy-paste job?

And look further at who was born from this act of sinful procreation:

37And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

38And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

If you know your Bible history, the Moabites and Ammonites became the sinful, immoral and murderous enemies of Israel.

Does Paul give a father permission to marry his own daughter in 1 Corinthians 7:36-38?

Only if the pastor or priest who ‘marries’ the brides and grooms later must consumnate the marriage with them. Honestly, your lack of language skills…

1 Cor 36 – If anyone thinks he is acting improperly toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if she is getting along in years and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.

OR

1 Cor 36 – If anyone thinks he is not treating his daughter properly, and if she is getting along in years, and he feels she ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. He should let her get married.

It’s only if you dishonestly combine parts of the two alternative translations do you get your libellious claim of incest.

Abraham and Sarah were half-brother and sister (Genesis 20:12).

Isaac and Rebekah were second cousins (Genesis 22-20ff.; 24:4).

Jacob was wed to the daughters of Laban, his mother’s brother (Genesis 24:43); his first cousin.

Et cetera. On the other hand, in Leviticus, we’re told incest should be punished with death. Like with other questions, the answer we get from the holy books seems contradictory.

You answer your own question really: The specific and exacting Levitical laws centuries after Abraham, Isaac and Jacob died.

Why don’t you also note that the Patriarchs has multiple wives and also children by their maids?

Again like the Lot example, this is not sanctioned by the Bible just because it is recorded, and it led to great familial strife.

Or why not question how all of humanity arose when there were only Adam and Eve on the whole planet?

Besides, the laws on sexual relations in Leviticues 18 do not forbid marriage between cousins, half-siblings or (if interpreted strictly by the exact words) even uncles and nieces. When you say incest, you ought to define how close relatives are before you consider it incest.

So even by those standards the Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are off the hook.

YOU FAIL, GOOD DAY SIR!!!

——————————

AND FINALLY, the point of my post is not to argue that Christians and Jews have superior morals to atheists in the matter of incest.

It is to ask atheists and humanists: If religion means nothing, and consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to, then why are you disgusted by incest? You have no justification to say it is immoral.

Nice spin. There were a lot of ad hominem attacks, to be sure: confusing “the message and the messenger,” but, overall, I have to hand it to you … you managed to dance around the question like Muhammad Ali in a prize fight. Well done! It brings you no closer to truth, but I’m sure it’s good for the ego.

Or why not question how all of humanity arose when there were only Adam and Eve on the whole planet?

Because I had enough explicit examples. Since you brought it up, though, I’ve always wondered: where did their children find wives?

you managed to dance around the question like Muhammad Ali in a prize fight. Well done! It brings you no closer to truth, but I’m sure it’s good for the ego.

You bloviate, sir. I satisfactorily, rationally, logically and contextually answered every one of your questions. How is that avoiding the problem?

Because I had enough explicit examples. Since you brought it up, though, I’ve always wondered: where did their children find wives?

The strict answer? The Bible doesn’t say where from.

The conjecture answers?

Adam and Eve were the first people, but that doesn’t preclude God creating more people after the Exile from the Garden of Eden.

Or being just newly affected by sin’s mutative effects, humanity’s genes were not adversely affected by any genetic bottleneck. Thus incest would not have resulted in birth defects, and therefore would not be a negative thing. (Heck, people force ‘incest’ on animals all the time to get purebred lines.)

It is up to the individual I suppose. As an atheist I subscribe to evolution and our evolutionary psyche has developed a “disgust”-like mechanism to combat such things as incest (in order to protect the species homo sapien sapien from inheriting continuous defective genes). Some people stray away from it, but that doesn’t really mean it should be illegal. Needless to say the vast majority of our species follow the psychological evolutionary chain which has brought us here today.

Also I think you will find, not many people have sexual attraction to a neighbourhood friend who they have known their whole life and have played together each week, etcetera. That is also because your psyche would interpret that person as a ‘family member’ from constant contact (have you ever close friends things like “you are like a brother/sister”? Same difference really).

“”Or do you admit that, deep down inside where you don’t dare look, you are influenced by irrational and illogical religion-based taboos against incest?”” -> Hell no! I am influenced by the evolutionary mechanisms that have developed over the millennia. Religion has nothing to do with it. By your post, you are making it out like religion is the basis of morality. Morality are far older than religion and you would do best never to forget that.

In the end, what you do consensually in your own home is your own business. No-one else should interfere with that civil right. That also answers your question “why is incest illegal while homosexuality is increasingly legal”; I agree I think it is discriminatory. If the two individuals are adults and are consenting to this action, then it is none of your (or my) business what they do.

Remind me to put the word ‘Incest’ in the title of one of my essays sometime.

“So why isn’t it legalized yet?”

Because of a memetically selfish and long established cultural taboo that is, aside from its groundlessness, fairly harmless in its function and not really worth the bother of uprooting at this moment.

We learn in SIA not to deny, that we did not imagine the incest, nor was it our fault in any way. The abuser will go to any length to shift the responsibility to the defenseless child, often accusing the child of being seductive. We had healthy, natural needs for love, attention and acceptance, and we often paid high prices to get those needs met, but we did not seduce our abuser. Physical coercion is rarely necessary with a child since the child is already intimidated. The more gentle the assault, the more guilt the victim inappropriately carries. We also learn not to accept any responsibility for the assaults even if these occurred over a prolonged period of time. Some of us are still being sexually assaulted.

In SIA we share our experiences and common feelings. We realize that we felt we had to protect our caretakers from this horrible secret, as if they were not participants. We felt alienated from the non-abusive family members. Often, greater anger is directed toward them since it is safer to get angry at people we perceive to be powerless. We became caretakers in order to maintain an image of a nurturing family. Our feelings of betrayal by our families are immeasurable. We need to mourn the death of the ideal family that many of us created in our own imaginations.

In dealing with this pain, it feels as if we are pulling the scab off a wound that never healed properly, AND IT HURTS. However, it is easier to cry when we have friends who are not afraid of our tears. We CAN be comforted – that is why we are here. Our pain is no longer in vain. We will never forget, but we can, in time, end the regretting that accompanies destructive remembering. We can learn, One Day at a Time, that we are incest SURVIVORS, rather than incest victims.

Because of a memetically selfish and long established cultural taboo that is, aside from its groundlessness, fairly harmless in its function and not really worth the bother of uprooting at this moment.

Meaning only when enough noisy activism groups are formed like the ones LGBT has, then something will be done about legalizing incest?

Meaning only when enough noisy activism groups are formed like the ones LGBT has, then something will be done about legalizing incest?

In as many words – however, I really don’t see that there would be a need great enough to justify the expenditure of energy it takes to accomplish a change in the social environment.

Also, I should probably add something here:

The last two posts between my last response and your reply highlight the nearness that exists between people’s view of incest and people’s view of sexual abuse. Sexual abuse of any kind is truly rancid and immoral regardless of the basis of your morality, be it secular or otherwise. It could be said that it is even more tragic that so many cases of sexual abuse are incestuous – but it seems disgraceful to qualify such abuse in such an arbitrary way. Abuse is abuse.

I just wanted to restate that which was explained earlier – that here we are talking about incest in as much as that incest which is not sexually abusive.

Sexual abuse is never justified, and I feel genuine sorrow on behalf of those such as have suffered from it, and genuine rage at those who perpetrate such vile actions.

Well, first of all marriage between 1st degree cousins is legal in many states. I personally could never touch my cousin with a finger but that’s it…
Plus, it should be noted that marriage between cousins appears in the bible and it is not condemned.
The possibility of a couple of SIBLINGS to produce a child with a disability is about 50% if I’m not mistaken, so the genetic case rests.

Avoiding incest has been observed among many animal races: it is a simple genetic mechanism, called kin recognition ability that prevents the damages brought from imbreeding.
Here is an essay on the matter:

The most important reasons why incest is frowned upon in human society though have social, not genetic reasons:
1) Exogamy helped forming alliances with neighbouring groups in ancient times.
2) The power relationships inside a family would be compromised: the son of a father and a daughter would be the brother of his mother, the son of his sister and a stepson of his grandmother etc.
Jealousy would be damaging to the unity of the family: a mother jealous of her daughter, a father that has to be the authority figure for the daughter he sleeps with… Pretty messed up.
3) If you ever dated and broke up with someone you had to see every day you’ll know it is a bad idea.

Another thing came to my mind:
if incestuos relationships were legal and a stronger member of the family was therefore allowed to have sexual access to a weaker one, there is the danger that he would come to expect it, therefore situations of abuse would be common.
I’ll try to explain: if it is legal for a fatherto have sex with his daughter, what could a daughter who wants to refuse his advances do? Would the father come to expect sex as a right?
Family is supposed to be a safe haven, where you can trust those around you and be sure they have no second means. Sex allways makes things more complicated: is he being nice because he is your brother or to seduce you?

If incest is allowed then social harmony would break down as has been explained by Davide Pintus. It is logical analysis no doubt.
one thing should remember that social laws considers entierity, not for individual choices.
when you try to change social norms, you must think for its total impacts.
So incestous relation must not be allowed.

Cain & wife - It is not stated who his wife is descended from. God could have created more humans. Or human genes may not have been too badly corrupted by sin yet that inter-mariage would cause problems. In any case, this took place before the time of Moses, which is when incest became formally forbidden.

Abraham & Sara – Same as above, before the Mosaic laws.

Nachor & Melcha – An uncle marrying a niece is not forbidden by Mosaic law. And still before Moses’ time.

Lot & daughters – For Lot being seduced by his daughters while drunk, you must remember that just because the Bible records something, doesn’t mean the Bible endorses it. Otherwise, you could similarly claim that the Bible endorses disobeying God, tempting like the Devil, crucifying Messiahs, rejecting prophets, murdering apostles…

(Also, if you actually READ the Bible instead of just copy-pasting someone else’s research:

37And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

38And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

If you know your Bible history, the Moabites and Ammonites became the sinful, immoral and murderous enemies of Israel. This is the result of sin. Also before Moses’ time.)

Amram & Jochabed – Wow, he got one just before the Mosaic laws against incest were established!

Amnon & Thamar – Either Dawkins and you are both ignorant noobs, or more likely Dawkins is intentionally misleading people and hoping they don’t stop to use their brains. Once again, just because the Bible records something, does not mean it endorses it. Incest and rape are sins, just as Thamar protested. Absalom later hunted down his brother and killed in in revenge.

In conclusion: You still have NOT told me why atheists consider incest wrong. Which is the question of my post.

Wow… you stirred up a long intense discussion with this topic, Scott, good on you! Read about halfway through, then I gave up :-) Just wanted to say I really appreciate the freedom of thought blog forums are encouraging. Doesn’t matter in the end about being “right” or “wrong” – most times those values are arbitrarily projected by humans cocooned within genetically inherited or culturally acquired cultural paradigms. But William James, the pioneer psychologist, once experimented with nitrous oxide (laughing gas) and while he was high, jotted down an insight he received, viz., “All babies are polymorphously perverse.” I like that phrase, although I wouldn’t have used the word “perverse” myself. Remember, the Rabbi Yeshua reportedly said” “Unless you become as little children you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” Well, little children ARE, to quote William James, “polymorphously perverse” – which means they see no sin anywhere they look! :-)

ermmmmm where does it say i was an atheist? You seem very keen to label people and by doing so it gives you a convenient target to aim for, but you are stripping away peoples humanity, their divinely given unique experience of this world in accordance with the creators divine plan. Labels are for soup tins, not divinely created beings.

The knee-jerk reaction is gross because i imagine a child, but if it’s between two adults then that’s really their decision. The reason its a law is probably a combination of preventing abuse/forced sex in the family, and lawmakers giving in to the religious right.

I am an atheist. Personally, I have never had any interest in engaging in incest myself, but morally I find no counter argument to what you have stated. The only concerns I express have more to do with matters of medical and psychological issues.

First, the medical. True, inbreeding occurring between two closely related individuals runs a relatively low rate of birth deficits however, inbreeding leads to an increase in homozygocity, that is, the same allele at the same locus on both members of a chromosome pair. This occurs because close relatives are more likely to share more alleles than nonrelated individuals. If an individual has an allele linked to a congenital birth defect, it is likely that close relatives also have this allele; a homozygote would express the congenital birth defect. If an individual does not have such an allele, a homozygote would be healthy. Thus, the frequency of a defect-carrying gene in a population may go up, or down, when inbreeding occurs. So, in small populations this dynamic would lead to an initial increase in birth defects. What I mean to say is, the longer it stays “within the family” so to speak, the higher the risk.

My second concern applies to a psychological aspect. http://flowstate.homestead.com/incest.html. If humans do exhibit some sort of automatic or even behavioral aversion to incest, what can this say about the inclination towards incestuous preferences? And how are we to define our relationships with each other? As of now, there are more common ‘boundaries’ if you will, concerning people in an individual’s life, their interpersonal relationships. Maybe I’m in error with this idea but, wouldn’t a blurring of those lines regarding which individuals we find sexually appealing cause a type of confusion in our social interactions?

Again, i might be off the mark here, it happens, but I think morally there isn’t anything to be put forth in opposition to the act of incest, just maybe some hesitation in the effects for breeding and mental states.

I am an atheist. For your questions, “why is incest morally wrong” I believe no one can answer that question without defining morals. Which, if looking at a society in general, can not be done. How can we define a single set of morals for all people? you cant. To me, this boils down to people dont know why it isnt accepted.
Ask a religious person why homosexuality is wrong. what answer do you get? probably something having to do with god or the bible. For morals, I believe we need to look at how it affects a society as a whole. Does murder hurt other people? yes, so it an “absolute morality” as stated above. even this is a fine line. im sure there are people out there that wont see murder as immoral. BUT the VAST majority do.

So these should not be considered Immoral by society. Which is what it all comes down to. you ask someone why some things are wrong, like incest, they dont know. cant asnwer. It has been engrained as a social norm that incest is wrong. That is my answer to you.

In 1973 homosexuality was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance. This represented a compromise between the view that preferential homosexuality is invariably a mental disorder and the view that it is merely a normal sexual variant.

As may also be noted, much further back in human history, homosexuality, that is really to say bisexuality, was fairly common amoung the Greeks. The ideal relationship was considered between a male or female of an older age paired while a same sex youth. It may also be noted that marriage / relations between some family members (as most prominently exemplified by the myths) was fairly common as well; although I am not sure on the closeness of the kin specifically.

Perhaps it may be surmised that we, as a society, are merely watching a slow comeback of these ancient customs? Given the apparent gradual downhill slide of monotheistic religion in most countries is growing (America seemingly to be the only stubborn mule in this case), it might not be too long before we do see a sexual liberation of a very great degree.

Indeed, civilizations and their values rise and fall. It is true too with religion. If one looks at the former bastions of monotheistic Christianity, it first bloomed in the Middle East, then dwindled out there as it flowered in Europe… And on to America, and now China and Asia are experiencing the greatest surge in evangelism.

I view it as an age-old moral struggle between the ways and wants of humans and the code laid down as the best way to live by the Creator. A rather religiocentric view, but that’s how I see it.

I personally believe that the core values in morality tend to revolve around some key concepts, that is, ones pertaining to brutality against fellow humans; rape, murder, etc. So, in a case of morality regarding sexual practices of mutually consenting adults in their home, I think that is something that should be decided by those individuals. As long as they aren’t hurting anyone, and have a healthy regard for the physical / mental health of their partners and themselves, what’s the problem?

Also, what exactly is your stance on the whole subject, taking into consideration the equal arguments of religious sensibility, medical concerns, and societal bias?

The Christian view of core morality is that apart from people whom we should not cause hurt or harm to, there is also the Creator God whom we should not cause hurt or harm to.

The relevant Biblical reference is Matthew 22:36-40 -“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

“Love God and love people” is a summary of the Mosaic Laws and the Ten Commandments (#1-4 pertaining to relationship with YHWH, #6-10 pertaining to relationship with people).

Thus from this passage combined with the Judeo-Christian concept that God is all-wise, all-powerful, deeply loves us and wants what is best for us:

If God has commanded or advised something (in this case, that homosexuality is forbidden), then we reason that it must be for out own good – even if we cannot see it or have a different.

Thus, by my reckoning, the religious aspect (God wants what is best for us) by default includes the humanistic aspect (whatever is good for people is of primary importance).

Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with things like consensual free love, legalized and carefully monitored prostitution, homosexuality – from a humanistic stand. They each come with risks, especially to emotional and family/relational health, but then what doesn’t?

But from a Christian viewpoint, I believe that God knows best when He set down the rules in the Bible. If I’m going to disbelieve certain claims or certain parts of the Bible I dislike, then why believe anything else – such as the claim that belief in Jesus will grant me salvation?

That’s my stance on the subject from the intertwined humanistic and religious viewpoints.

When you make incest illegal or stigmatize it, you propose to exclude very few people from the universe of acceptable mates, and everyone still has a very large remaining pool of people from which to find love.

When you make homosexuality illegal or stigmatize it, you propose to eliminate all options for homosexuals and relegate them to a loveless life. That’s sick, and it’s not comparable or analogous to incest.

A good response on the surface. However, you are applying double standards when you make a distinction between the characteristics of incestuous and homosexual attraction.

To wit, what if the persons committing incest are only sexually attracted to members of their own immediate family? Then outlawing or stigmatizing incest would be to eliminate all options for them and relegate them to a loveless life, to paraphrase your words.

If homosexuals ‘don’t choose’ whom they are attracted to, as some parties suggest, then what makes you think incestuous people have any more control over whom they have sexual/romantic feelings for?

Incest is just a word. It has no value except in the minds of those who choose to acknowledge it. Even the use of the word “sex” is another label. I prefer to define things according to their purpose. Sex is a form of pleasure. It has nothing directly to do with love. Its an act of self fulfillment. And it can be given as a gift through love. A mutual exchange of pleasure between two people is nothing but a good thing. Love and pleasure knows nothing about brothers, sisters, mothers, etc. Its okay for a mother to massage a son’s back, but not his penis?

I personally know a couple who had several kids and they all had sexual pleasure with one another early on. The kids learned early how to give and receive sexual pleasure and nothing bad ever came from it. They are grown up now and are very admirable adults. They didnt turn into sex freaks. Thats a fear tactic used to promote religion.

I was amazed at the stories told by this family(in detail). It makes me realize that sexual pleasure is a very natural necessity in raising a well balanced group of individuals. Our society these days are way off balance because of the preaching of shame towards our bodies and sex. Its awful.

I have two young daughters under 8. I have never introduced incest into the family. I believe its because of the many fears instilled inside me growing up. But, if I had been made to perform sex acts on my parents as a child and made to think that sex was good and natural, I would have continued it. One of the kids(now grown) discussed with me how she always looked forward to her mom, dad, or even her brother giving her oral sex when she was 9. She stated that it was a higlight of her day and sometimes she had to bribe one of them to get it. But she didnt grow up a nymphomaniac. She is the most brightest, openminded woman I ever met. Very very smart indeed.

Shame begets shame. I am ashamed of America for teaching such crap in our society on behalf of a stupid ideologies that come from CHristianity.

Incest is not just a word. It is a word with profound meanings. Sex is not just a word, either. It is a word equally laden with meaning. Each word carries meanings and consequences; dire consequences if it is incest, and the same if it is illicit sex. And not just in the mind.

You gave one example. And you yourself confess that you did not introduce incest into your own family. “She is the most brightest, openminded woman I ever met.” So? One instance and the rest of us should follow? One swallow and you see summer? One person from one family, and what is good and normal in society is called into question? It is not crap to have normal asexual relationships within the family. If I may borrow your words and add a twist to them, “I am ashamed of people for blaming Christianity when their own perverse minds and evil hearts warp the very teachings of Jesus Christ.”

I’m an atheist, and I don’t have any real problems with informed, consensual sex in any situation. I acknowledge that sometimes people feel that this kind of relationship is unacceptable or harmful, and if they have a good argument against it based solely on factual (ie. scientific) information _and_ can convince a couple of their POV (again, making an informed decision) then I would accept that decision. However, I cannot in good conscience force a happy couple to end their relationship because I feel a need to force my views upon them – and I’m concerned that anyone else could.

I also think it’s a little irresponsible for a couple to choose to have children if there is a good chance of a genetic defect, but while I personally would consider alternatives (adoption, IVF etc.) it’s really the couple’s choice to support a child and any consequences.

I’m no psychologist, but I’ve heard of the ‘Westermark effect’, a kind of reverse sexual psychological imprinting that occurs when children are brought up together. Perhaps this is one reason that many find incest repulsive or confusing – they cannot understand why anyone would do such a thing because they cannot imagine _themselves_ doing it (a little flawed, I know).

Thanks for the post, and for all the sensible comments BTW, I thought this was an interesting thing to think about!

It is right that credit is given to where it is due. Only the poor thinkers and skewered being little learned, would not. Where’s the oft implied ‘corrruption’? Even a non monotheist, well studied, with real gumption and is thoughtful can discern what’s true and what’s false with regard to humanitarian and moral values. Just ignore the Deity part and understand the Universal Values.

Honor your father and mother
You shall not kill
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife
You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor

Here’s an interesting article written by Paul Copan that explain my position on this issue (and relativism as a whole) perfectly. If you don’t feel like reading all of it, skip down to the “food for thought” part of the article. It summarizes the article pretty well. Enjoy! :]
———————————————————–

‘Behind this line is fine’ is fine, says the relativist. ‘As long as you keep your opinions to yourself then we’ll all get along’ But does the relativist stay behind the line when he tells you to?

Imagine a multiple car-car collision at a busy junction near your home. It’s an occurrence that shouldn’t be hard to picture. It may, in fact, strike a little too close to home, as it did for my family and me in June 1997. Now stretch your imagination further. Assume we live in a less lawsuit-happy world. Instead of all parties silently exchanging licence and insurance information and driving away without admitting even a sliver of blame, every one runs into the junction to explain his or her side of the story: ‘You pulled out in front of me!’ ‘But I had the right of way. Don’t you know that red means stop?’ Pedestrians who witnessed the accident from the curb interject what they saw. A trucker with an elevated, commanding view of the junction weighs in. Then perhaps the guilty part steps forward: ‘Well, actually, it was my fault. I was talking on my car phone. I wasn’t paying attention to what I was doing. I caused the accident.’

For all the post-accident debate, when a police officer arrives and begins taking notes, one truth will be clear: an accident happened. And in time, other truths will be determined. Ultimately, a description of the accident will emerge that corresponds to reality.

We live our lives relying on the belief that objective truth exists – if only we can find it. We gather evidence; weigh credibility and truthfulness; make difficult judgements. In the end, we arrive at a close proximity to truth. We can make truthful statements that describe with reasonable accuracy how events really happened. (Or, given the right evidence, we can determine truth regarding whether the car we bought was a lemon, or how our major life decisions were right or wrong, or if God is real.) We believe that if we had a helicopter over every junction and a video camera inside each car – to see who is on the phone, or shaving, or turning up the volume – we can even discover truth about ‘accidents’.

Truth is more than our subjective reporting of a car crash. It has objective existence. It has universal application.

Truth is true – even if no one knows it
Truth is true – even if no one admits it
Truth is true – even if no one agrees what it is
Truth is true – even if no one follows it
Truth is true – even if no one but God grasps it fully
Although some local authorities have given up trying to figure out who to blame for car accidents (hence ‘no fault’ insurance), truth matters. And when the stakes are raised – when a child crossing the street is struck and killed, for example – finding the truth becomes essential. Serious circumstances remind us that the difficulty of finding the truth is no excuse for not looking.

Enter the relativist. To the relativist, no ‘fact’ is in all times and places true. He argues that because everyone’s point of view is different, we can’t ever know what really happened at the accident scene. In fact, the hard-core relativist says that given the slippery nature of what the rest of us mistakenly call ‘truth’, we can’t even settle on the fact that the accident actually happened.

So some people, called ‘relativists’, would answer Pilate’s question ‘What is truth?’ by saying that each person decides what is true for them. Jesus claims he is true-for-everyone and not just true-for-me.

What could a thoughtful person say in response?

Some food for thought for relativists:

1. If my belief is only true for me, then why isn’t your belief only true for you?
2. Aren’t you saying you want me to believe the same thing you do?
3. You say that no belief is true for everyone, but you want everyone to believe what you do.
4 .You’re making universal claims that relativism is true and absolutism is false. You can’t in the same breath say, ‘Nothing is universally true’ and ‘My view is universally true.’ Relativism falsifies itself. It claims there is one position that is true – relativism!
5. You’re applying your view to everyone but yourself. You expect others to believe your views (the ‘self-excepting fallacy’).

1) Incest is wrong according to our instincts to reproduce, just as homosexuality is. Incest is counterproductive to reproduction, because even though the margin for defects is small, it’s still small. Just the same, homosexuality is counterproductive because the vast majority of homosexuals do not have biological children.
2) Humans are meant to avoid negative situations, that is what pain is, that is what “morality” is. Why is incest not moral? Why is thievery not moral? Why IS it wrong to take another person’s property. There is no such thing as absolute morality, or absolute immorality. If a child is raised with no input or opinions towards a certain subject, there is no way to predict what their feelings towards such a way will exist.
3) Sex is not a vehicle of pleasure. Well, not necessarily. Sex is instilled in us to reproduce, in our instincts, The whole POINT of why sex feels good is because it encourages us to do it more often, and reproduce more. It is not a vehicle for pleasure, it is a vehicle for birth.
*Please do no misconstrue this post as my opinions on these subjects. I am only trying to provide a counterpoint to your argument, not disparage or demean any social groups*

——————————————————————————-
So I’ll ask again – what basis do atheists, liberals and moral relativists have for the intolerance, bigotry and Dark Ages mentality they show when they denounce full blown, incestuous, unprotected anal intercourse between two adult brothers as ‘gross’?
——————————————————————————-

What…the…f***…Seriously?
Sorry for the rudeness, but in what ways is that NOT gross.
The idea of full blown unprotected anal intercourse is ‘gross’ to begin with. Homosexuality and incest just make it ‘grosser’.

People have brothers and sisters and same sex friends, and imagining having sex with them is gross.

It is gross for the same reason you find anything else in your life to be gross. It is like asking why is feces urine and vomit is ‘gross’.
______________________
By law, It should not be banned, but for morals…well…that’s a different story.

If morality is equated by necessary survival (not of oneself, but of mankind as a whole, because if mankind doesn’t exist, oneself cannot exist) then it is immoral to murder and immoral to destroy because it compromises the necessity of survival.

It would also logically conclude to the immorality of homosexuality, because through universal homosexuality, survival of mankind would be compromised, no natural births would be made, thus ending mankind.

So if homosexuality is considered immoral, then that leaves incestuous acts between two consenting adults of opposite sex to be discussed.

First, the unnaturalness of the situation comes into play. One cannot observe and refute the fact that it is against the “norm” of society and to nature of human beings. And if you think you can…look no more into argument…do what you will…live your life, because argument obviously won’t stop your actions.

Given the size of modern society, such effects on a child of incestuous parents will have negative psychological effects on that child.

With that negative effect on the child, he/she will thus negatively effect the rest of society.

negative effects on society ultimately cause the destruction of a society, therefore not prevailing to the notion of necessary survival.

That is even without the increase of chance for birth defects, which adds even greater ‘negativity’ into society for a child.

If it was accepted and practiced widely throughout society, then it would not be immoral (obviously)

But…since it is out of the “norm” of human nature, it is not seen widely throughout society, thus causing outcast from society, leading to more problems for child and parent.

______________________________________________________

In the case of Adam and Eve (if existed), incestuous activity must have been committed. But in the case of ‘necessary survival’ of mankind. The act was not ‘immoral’. Therefore if survival of mankind depended on incestuous action, then, and only then, would it not be immoral.

*Note : I wholeheartedly mean it when I say that I do not intend to offend anyone based on your choice in life. I do not condemn you as deserving punishment or taking away from your humanity. My viewpoint is solely that your choice of lifestyle negatively affect mankind, which will come back around to negatively affect not only others, but yourselves as well.

We are working on an article on Debatepedia about legalizing adult incest. You may want to have a look. And, we may want to document and organize the many arguments found here in the post and comment section.

What atheist says incest is morally wrong? If it is, it is only because it violates community standards of decency, which even an atheist may choose to respect. They may see it as a relatively venal ‘sin’, perhaps on par with lying, probably not on a par with executing the insane and children, or torturing prisoners, as our religious president thought was just fine.

I didn’t hear anything about this one. Citation? If you mean the Iraq War, I have a quick and direct put down waiting for you.

or torturing prisoners

Abu Zubaida was questioned in a ‘human rights adhering way’ for months but wouldn’t talk. Finally he was waterboarded… for about 35 seconds. He spilled the beans on terrorist operations on American soil, information which led directly to successfully preventing those attacks (and the deaths of dozens or hundreds of lives).

I’ve been reading your various blogs and its gratifying to know that your assumptions and opinions of atheists are all wrong.

But incest? I’m an atheist and the very thought of just a hot lip lock on any of my three sisters is just, for lack of a better word, icky. “gross” and “yuck” fall in there as well.
Aside from that alone there is the very serious danger of producing genetically inferior offspring.

Speaking of incest, there was Adam, Eve and sons Cane and Abel. How did that foursome populate the Earth? Did Cane and Abel do Eve or their sisters if they had any? Or did they have sex with their own daughters? And did their sons have sex with their sisters and mother?

Look at yourself and your pathetically flawed dogma before you point your crooked finger at others and haughtily foist your senseless diatribe in some pathetic attempt to elevate yourself.

Liberal ‘Patriot’, the point of my post is to ask atheists: If atheist morality is based on logic and reason, concluding on what is best for and enjoyed by humans, and not based on some obscure and outdated religious beliefs, what reason do you have for thinking that incest is immoral?

Religious folk condemn incest simply ‘because God says so in the Bible’. But since you don’t believe in that stuff, where do you get your moral standards from?

By what right do you condemn incest as ‘icky, gross or yuck’, when two adult siblings consent to sexual activity, especially if care is taken to avoid any pregancy? For example, how do you respond to the case of two twin lesbians or twin gay guys as I gave above?

You know what? Religious folk view homosexuality as ‘icky, gross or yuck’. So you’re displaying the exact same sort of fanatical dogmatism as them, aren’t you? Only with a different target?

Compare yourself to all the other atheists in the earlier comments on this thread.

Observe:

I’d like a few instanced of atheists who are repelled by the idea of adult incest, homosexual or not… Then in that case I can’t see the harm… – togret

As an atheist I subscribe to evolution and our evolutionary psyche has developed a “disgust”-like mechanism to combat such things as incest… Some people stray away from it, but that doesn’t really mean it should be illegal. In the end, what you do consensually in your own home is your own business. – Billards Champ

I am an atheist. Personally, I have never had any interest in engaging in incest myself, but morally I find no counter argument to what you have stated. – Anne

I am an atheist. For your questions, “why is incest morally wrong” I believe no one can answer that question without defining morals. Which, if looking at a society in general, can not be done… Does CONSENSUAL incest between adults hurt others? no….. So these should not be considered Immoral by society. – Riley Hans

I’m an atheist, and I don’t have any real problems with informed, consensual sex in any situation. Ryhs

Looks like you’re in the minority, you anti-incest bigot. Those other atheists above don’t find incest inherently wrong. Why are you so prejudiced and intolerant to not accept consensual adult incest, unlike your much more enlightened counterparts?

Are you judging incestuous couples by your subjective standards without any valid reason? If so, you are acting like a religious believer.

Answer me that and tell me how you are not a bigot too, and I’ll give my answer on Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel.

here is the thing, if it was not for the government, then all this stuff would not be illegal, its just higher up deciding for us, and after a while of hearing how wrong, and gross it is, we start to feel that way, if you would see movies and tv shows showing a happy incestious family’s then people would start acting different about it, its conditioning, thats why people see it how they do. me myself i see nothing wrong with it, and i think it is normal for bro/sis mom/son fat/dau why is it so wrong? you are allready close, and you love the person, and you definitly know that you get along with the person. its basically the greatest relationship there is. but it will be a long time before people can actually come out and say that they are in a incestious relationship. and i am sure there are sooo many more incestious relationships out there then people can even emagine.

I guess then there should be now laws. Then people could do whatever they wanted and be “happy”. You could have sex in public in front of young children if you wanted or with children themselves – no age limit. Who’s to say it’s wrong.
Just because 99.9% of people would be disgusted with that, does it really make it wrong, when there is no right and wrong in the view of the small minority.

I am an atheist and I’m wondering how many out there who have read this can see the sham of your question? To me you appear to have already decided by your descriptions of the act of its moral aberration and appear to assume what all atheists think. You’re imposing your assumptions as a question.
Now assuming that your judeo-christian myth is correct then you should not find any form of incest as repugnant or immoral considering the tale of Adam and Eve. If they were the first humans to walk this earth then their children needed to procreate with each other in order to populate this planet. Now considering also that Cain killed Abel then the only people now alive are Adam, Eve and Cain. So who did Cain mate with in order to populate the Earth?
Do you see how ridiculous this is?
Now what about Star Wars? Here’s Luke Skywalker getting the hots for Princess Leia, competing with Han Solo for her affection to later find out that she is his sister. What if they never found out and decided to hook up, so to speak?
It is our laws and that which influence them that dictate our ‘moral’ behavior. Back in the old Sparta days homosexuality was a normal, acceptable practice. Was that evil?
As a heterosexual I simply cannot imagine having sex with a man. When I see a man naked and bent over it may just as well have been a goat who wandered in and goats don’t turn me on either. I think that homosexuality is a genetic condition. Men who are attracted to other men possess the genes that hetero women have and vice versa. This is an assumption on my part because I simply cannot make a choice on whether or not to be homosexual.
Just as I cannot imagine making love with any of my sisters or cousins. And I think that the fact that the earth is populated by a very successful majority of heterosexuals then our genetics continue to evolve in the proper direction. Nature does make mistakes and I am not willing to morally condemn someone for a condition they’ve been born with.

Uh, first off, why teh hecks are you equating JudeoChristianity and Star Wars? You must have mistaken this for The Jawa Report.

My post simply asks the question: If one’s morality is NOT based on some outdated myths handed down from antiquity, then on what basis do they judge incest between consenting adults to be immoral?

Jews, Christians and Muslims can simply answer “Because our holy book and God say so.” What about atheists – what justification do they have for thinking that incest is wrong?

And I am not speaking rhetorically – as a look through of the comments on this page shows, quite a number of atheists believe incest to be fundamentally immoral.

And as for the ‘incest in the Bible’ query, I’ve tackled that issue before in this very post’s comments, here:

Where did their children find wives? The strict answer? The Bible doesn’t say where from.

The conjecture answers? Adam and Eve were the first people, but that doesn’t preclude God creating more people after the Exile from the Garden of Eden.

Or being just newly affected by sin’s mutative effects, humanity’s genes were not adversely affected by any genetic bottleneck. Thus incest would not have resulted in birth defects, and therefore would not be a negative thing. (Heck, people force ‘incest’ on animals all the time to get purebred lines.)

Cain & wife – It is not stated who his wife is descended from. God could have created more humans. Or human genes may not have been too badly corrupted by sin yet that inter-mariage would cause problems. In any case, this took place before the time of Moses, which is when incest became formally forbidden.

Abraham & Sara – Same as above, before the Mosaic laws.

Nachor & Melcha – An uncle marrying a niece is not forbidden by Mosaic law. And still before Moses’ time.

Lot & daughters – For Lot being seduced by his daughters while drunk, you must remember that just because the Bible records something, doesn’t mean the Bible endorses it. Otherwise, you could similarly claim that the Bible endorses disobeying God, tempting like the Devil, crucifying Messiahs, rejecting prophets, murdering apostles…

Amram & Jochabed – Wow, he got one just before the Mosaic laws against incest were established!

Amnon & Thamar – Either Dawkins and you are both ignorant noobs, or more likely Dawkins is intentionally misleading people and hoping they don’t stop to use their brains. Once again, just because the Bible records something, does not mean it endorses it. Incest and rape are sins, just as Thamar protested. Absalom later hunted down his brother and killed in in revenge.

Thank you for not reading and/nor comprehending my answer to your question. Read it again.
As for the biblical posh, as an atheist it is nothing but myth to me in the first place. No different from the Isis, Mythra, Zues, or Thor stories, not to mention the beliefs of other ancient and modern aboriginals.

Thank you for not comprehending my reply. On what points did I stray from your gist?

Fine, giving you the benefit of the doubt, allow me to re-answer your comment line by line.

I am an atheist and I’m wondering how many out there who have read this can see the sham of your question? To me you appear to have already decided by your descriptions of the act of its moral aberration and appear to assume what all atheists think. You’re imposing your assumptions as a question.

This is true, my post is aimed at exposing the fallacies and hypocrisy of atheists who subscribe to a relativistic morality, yet consider incest immoral.

However, I do not assume that all atheists consider incest immoral. I am fully aware that there are many ‘enlightened liberals’ who fully embrace homosexuality, incest, zoophilia, child sex, you name it. My post is aimed at those who do not accept these practices, and asks them: “What justification do you have for judging thusly?”

And if you’ll read the wording of my post carefully, you will find that I do not admit my own views on whether or not incest is/should be considered immoral. It is merely your assumption.

Now assuming that your judeo-christian myth is correct then you should not find any form of incest as repugnant or immoral considering the tale of Adam and Eve. If they were the first humans to walk this earth then their children needed to procreate with each other in order to populate this planet. Now considering also that Cain killed Abel then the only people now alive are Adam, Eve and Cain. So who did Cain mate with in order to populate the Earth?
Do you see how ridiculous this is?

I have answered this query as best I can in the previous reply.

Now what about Star Wars? Here’s Luke Skywalker getting the hots for Princess Leia, competing with Han Solo for her affection to later find out that she is his sister. What if they never found out and decided to hook up, so to speak?

It is our laws and that which influence them that dictate our ‘moral’ behavior. Back in the old Sparta days homosexuality was a normal, acceptable practice. Was that evil?

To a Christian, yes it is evil.

To an atheist, it should not be absolutely evil, only relativistically evil to certain societies.

What’s your point?

As a heterosexual I simply cannot imagine having sex with a man. When I see a man naked and bent over it may just as well have been a goat who wandered in and goats don’t turn me on either. I think that homosexuality is a genetic condition. Men who are attracted to other men possess the genes that hetero women have and vice versa. This is an assumption on my part because I simply cannot make a choice on whether or not to be homosexual.

Just as I cannot imagine making love with any of my sisters or cousins. And I think that the fact that the earth is populated by a very successful majority of heterosexuals then our genetics continue to evolve in the proper direction. Nature does make mistakes and I am not willing to morally condemn someone for a condition they’ve been born with.

So you are saying that you do not consider incest or homosexuality as fundamentally immoral.

Yet as my previous reply stated, there are many self-proclaimed atheists who DO consider such acts immoral. I shall quote them below. If the quoted protions do not seem to indicate their philosophical beliefs, then click the links and read through their entire comments:

What…the…f***…Seriously? Sorry for the rudeness, but in what ways is that NOT gross. The idea of full blown unprotected anal intercourse is ‘gross’ to begin with. Homosexuality and incest just make it ‘grosser’. People have brothers and sisters and same sex friends, and imagining having sex with them is gross. It is gross for the same reason you find anything else in your life to be gross. It is like asking why is feces urine and vomit is ‘gross’. – Ricey

I’ve been reading your various blogs and its gratifying to know that your assumptions and opinions of atheists are all wrong. But incest? I’m an atheist and the very thought of just a hot lip lock on any of my three sisters is just, for lack of a better word, icky. “gross” and “yuck” fall in there as well. – Liberal Patriot

And lastly, to answer your most recent comment:

As for the biblical posh, as an atheist it is nothing but myth to me in the first place. No different from the Isis, Mythra, Zues, or Thor stories, not to mention the beliefs of other ancient and modern aboriginals.

The reason I quoted the ‘Biblical posh’ is because you raised the question of incest in that ‘Biblical posh’. It is thus unfair of you to cite the Bible, then pooh-pooh me when I answer your query by citing the Bible myself.

As for the comparison to the myths of other religions, I contend that Christianity has a far more solid historical and factual basis than any other religion – pagan, ancient, modern or otherwise. I would start citing my evidence, but I predict that you would just ignore it and start on another line of critical ranting. Am I wrong?

There is no reliable evidence, certainly no proof, that Jesus ever existed – that is more evidence that the catholic church forged a few lines, adding to some ancient text.

All religion is rubbish. A result of the desperation of the mind. Certainly it would be nice to have a god to answer our prayers – just as it would also be nice if I won the $50millon lottery and had a night in Paris – the blond – not the City – I slipped into Paris last year – the City that is.

So much trouble has been caused by religion over the years, and is still being caused now, that ALL religion should be stopped!

– The Talmud carries various records, claiming that Mary was an adulteress and Jesus an illegitimate child.

– Jewish historian Josephus wrote of Jesus that “Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified…”

– Roman historian Tacitus wrote of the founder of the Christian religion: “Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”

– Roman-Syrian satirist Lucian wrote that “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day — the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account…”

– The Talmud states the following about Jesus’ following, criminal charges, and method and time of execution: “On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu was hanged. Forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried: “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.” But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.“

– Jewish historian Josephus wrote of Jesus that “He appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold”

– Roman-Syrian satirist Lucian alludes to the belief of Christians that “They are immortal for all time”.

All the above wrote about Jesus long before the Roman Catholic church ever existed. In fact, they were almost certainly ANTI-Christian, like yourself, paganism being the majority religion of the time. Yet they couldn’t deny that Jesus existed without being laughed out of town, so they simply decided to make fun of Him and His believers.

As for your insinuation that religion has caused more bad than good… Oh yes, I’m certain that without religion, we could all live in a far better world guided by logical atheism. Kind of like the following:

How do you feel now that everyone has seen how ignorantly you shot your mouth off, Ratface? A little less ‘cocky’?

Please, dude, do YOURSELF a huge favour. This is the Internet age, and you obviously have access to a computer and a connection. Use them, and pull your under-educated self out of that mud pit of wilfull ignorance you have entrenched yourself in and are trying to sling mud at religious folk from.

After all, I thought atheism was all about knowledge and intelligence? Lol!

To an atheist, it should not be absolutely evil, only relativistically evil to certain societies.

What’s your point?”

So what’s your point in asking? Fishing? Trolling? Attempting to ‘understand’ atheists or just get up on your soap box and condescend? you remind me of a great song by Billy Joel titled “Angry Young Man”.

What you don’t understand is what you’re attempting to foist on atheists and all who bother to read here, is your opinion. Sorry Pal, the burden of proof lies with those making the extraordinary claims; being your myth. It is not up to any atheist to disprove, it is up to you to prove. And all you have is a book of tales. I do too but I don’t scour the earth searching for hobbits or scan the skies for winged unicorns.
And you have nothing.

So what’s your point in asking? Fishing? Trolling? Attempting to ‘understand’ atheists or just get up on your soap box and condescend? you remind me of a great song by Billy Joel titled “Angry Young Man”.

My point? To amuse myself on my own blog, which I am currently achieving, thank you atheists who can’t resist a lure!

What you don’t understand is what you’re attempting to foist on atheists and all who bother to read here, is your opinion.

My opinion. Well, DUH.

You sure live up to your reputation as rationally thinking and logically sound.

Sorry Pal, the burden of proof lies with those making the extraordinary claims; being your myth.

Atheists Are God – Atheists know that God isn’t anywhere in the entire universe. They also know that God isn’t anywhere in alternate existence realities, despite the fact that it is impossible to break into alternate dimensions. They are therefore omniscient and omnipotent, and thus, they are God.

I seeee. I truly do pity people whose sole activities center around a computer. Presently, I am reading and answering email that I have not bothered to read for the last two days because I have a life away from the keyboard. And I do get Key Bored in short order.

But hey, I digress and I am encroaching on, well, what appears to be the only thing in your life.

You never know, it might be fun… Which would be beneficial to you according to your philosophy, seeing as you only have these short few decades on the mortal coil before entering the oblivion of nonexistence, and thus ought to maximize the euphoria level of every moment of conciousness you have.

“You never know, it might be fun… Which would be beneficial to you according to your philosophy, seeing as you only have these short few decades on the mortal coil before entering the oblivion of nonexistence, and thus ought to maximize the euphoria level of every moment of conciousness you have.”

My, you do have a sense of humor and somewhat of a wit… or at least half of one. And what could you possibly think I would find in your self absorbed blogs that would remotely ‘maximize the euphoria level’ prior to my demise? Maybe yours perhaps. I find this now to be a bore.

Quoting all these ancient texts as being proof of some supernatural happening is no proof at all! No one knows for sure who wrote the Bible, Talmud, etc. Texts of Josephus are thought by most intelligent people to be most likely forged – by the catholic Church. 2000 years ago people were ignorant of even the most basic science.They had no idea about bacteria, viruses, motor cars, toilet paper and tampons! Everyday phenomena was interpreted as the workings of god.

When I say Catholic Church I refer to the Christian church which was started by Constantine(Constantine was the guy that executed his wife and his son!) in about 311 or so and ratified at the Council of Nicaea in 325 when it was decided that 300+ years previously a virgin gave birth to a boy and that boy was also his own father – and the same boy was a ghost as well!

If anyone disagreed with them – for the next 1500 years – they were killed by stoning, burning, disemboweling, beheading or some other awful means. Christians first set about killing the arians, who did believe in Jesus, but did not believe jesus and his father and a ghost were all one and the same. So they were killed! As they slaughtered Hypatia – by “Saint” Cyril. – and Tyndale who translated the Bible! and hundreds of others who were burned at the stake. The crusades, Inquisition, Salem witch trials, even Nazis had religious roots. Don’t let us forget about Catholic-Protestants in Northern Ireland, 9/11 and muslim suicide bombers on buses in Israel and London etc.

To forget the past atrocities of christianity is like forgetting the atrocities of the nazis in Germany – because the nazis did do some things right – Germany has the best roads in the world and – arguably – the most successful motor car company in the world – Volkswagen – both of these were started by Hitler! And the nazis were only around for 12 years – Christianity and Islam have been here for 1.5 & 2 thousand years – doing bad things between a few good ones.

The catholic church banned potatoes when they were first imported from America – because they grew under the ground – where the devil lived!!! NUTS!!!!!

Stalin did not kill people because he was an atheist – he killed people because he was a criminal and wanted to get rid of anyone, religious or not, that may have challenged his position.

As for Pol Pot and Mao, but these people killed other atheists as well – anyone who did not agree with them. they were criminals. they did not kill purely because they did not believe in a god – an atheist capitalist free thinker would have been killed as well.

Unlike muslims and christians who kill, or previously killed, purely because another person does not believe in precisely the same god!

There are a Billion Hindus – who are atheists as far as Christianity is concerned – just as Christians are Atheists
as to the Hindu gods – it is an insult to religions other than your own to claim that mass murder is caused by not believing in your brand of god.

Strange how Stalin, Mao, Poll Pot are always brought out as examples of “bad atheists” – these are the only people that religious can find. So few!!! – Hitler used to be cited as well but now there is much evidence that he was a Catholic – or influenced by the Catholic church and religion and the supernatural played a big part in nazi mentality.

When it comes to religion, the list is endless – many Popes, Bishops and other clergymen were involved in terrible atrocities – hundreds of thousands of people have be killed in the name of religion – how many Africans will die by taking the advice of this current Pope? (by not wearing Condoms)

(By The way – off the subject – The new President of South Africa thinks that taking a shower after sex will prevent aids!)
========

What does the catholic Bishop say to Priest when he finds him naked in the shower? —–“Get ye behind me Satan!”

If anyone disagreed with them – for the next 1500 years – they were killed by stoning, burning, disemboweling, beheading or some other awful means. Christians first set about killing the arians, who did believe in Jesus, but did not believe jesus and his father and a ghost were all one and the same. So they were killed!

Mm hmm. And do you happen to know what the pagans were doing to Christians for the four centuries before Emperor Constantine converted?

Stalin did not kill people because he was an atheist – he killed people because he was a criminal and wanted to get rid of anyone, religious or not, that may have challenged his position.

At the same time, Stalin did not abstain from killing people because he was not religious. After all, what does an atheist need of those make-believe old sayings like “Thou shalt not commit murder?” Stalin’s thorough destruction of the churches during his Great Purge should give a hint as to his views regarding religion.

There are a Billion Hindus – who are atheists as far as Christianity is concerned – just as Christians are Atheists
as to the Hindu gods – it is an insult to religions other than your own to claim that mass murder is caused by not believing in your brand of god.

Looks like your knowledge of the Hindu faith is about as deep as your knowledge about Christianity. Even Wikipedia would have set your ignorance straight.

If you said that Christians consider Hindus to be pagan, that would have been correct.

To forget the past atrocities of christianity is like forgetting the atrocities of the nazis in Germany – because the nazis did do some things right

A more correct comparison would be to judge a belief system by what its main texts say, not what its proponent do. Frankly, any Christian who commits murder has broken multiple commands, including “Do not commit murder”, “Love your neighbor as yourself”, “Love your enemy”, “Do unto others as you would they do unto you”…

What commands does atheism have? Besides “Thou shalt have no morals save relativistic ones that best suit thy personal depravations.”

Strange how Stalin, Mao, Poll Pot are always brought out as examples of “bad atheists” – these are the only people that religious can find. So few!!!

Strange how just three examples of the rare ‘bad atheists’ managed to kill more innocent people than 6000 years of the plentiful ‘bad religionists’, isn’t it?

Blaming Atheism for Stalin’s purge is like blaming my mother, a very strict Roman Catholic, for the Spanish Inquisition. Stalin’s motive was political and paranoid. He wanted no power perceived to be greater than his own and eliminated those he thought to be threats. Now, on your 6000 years of killing you don’t mention the 250,000 to 500,000 years of human history predating it. How many died under the heel of thugs and witchdoctors for their defiance prior to your 6000 years of organized ‘spiritual’ extortion? I guess we’ll never really know, will we? The fact is that any ‘justification’ for genocide is nothing less than an excuse to maintain power. Whether committed by Theists or Atheists. Give careful thought before pointing a finger of blame.

Quote1:
Hindu religion: I know very little about the Hindu religion – although I did live for many years in a place that had the largest collection of Hindus outside of India – The Hindus I knew seemed to be a placid non violent kind of people, but I profess to know little about their beliefs.

Quote2: Stalin et al: Seems it is ok for christians to kill a few thousand as long as they don’t kill as many as a criminal such as Stalin!!!!
I think that killing even 1 person is too many! But it seems that god can kill as many people as he likes, maim a few babies because women are wearing short dresses, and kill a few million Africans because they use condoms – or whatever the pope thinks is wrong!

Quote2:
“Strange how just three examples of the rare ‘bad atheists’ managed to kill more innocent people than 6000 years of the plentiful ‘bad religionists’, isn’t it?”

The catholic church, over the previous 1500 years or so, never had “Zyclon b” and similar modern technology. There is little doubt that they would have used on anyone that did not follow their beliefs, it if they had the technology. – (eating potatoes was forbidden by the catholic church when they were first introduce t europe, because potatoes came from under ground where the devil lived!! – I wonder what god thought about that?)

But secular law, this present pope, ex nazi and leader of the largest collection of convicted paedophiles the world has known, would revert back to medieval policy.

Strange how he has more faith in armoured glass, bullet proof plating, policemen with guns rather than trust god to protect him? If he is so close to god, why does he not rely on his faith? His attitude is sickening, so false, walking around in those ridiculous clothes pretending to be gentle.

===

By the way : changing the subject – I must commend your website! If you look back you will notice a post that I made about homosexuals – I refuse to call them “gay” – they stole the word – To me parents, gay was a pleasant word but these backside bandits have stolen it and changed the meaning.
I made a similar post on the Richard Dawkins website (because i feel that these chutney ferrets are hijacking and giving atheists a bad name) – My post was deleted from the Richard Dawkins website – so much for free speech!!!!

I think that killing even 1 person is too many! But it seems that god can kill as many people as he likes, maim a few babies because women are wearing short dresses, and kill a few million Africans because they use condoms – or whatever the pope thinks is wrong!

Actually, it is totally within God’s rights to ‘kill’ anyone He chooses. He created that person and freely gave that person life, for which that person never paid anything for and instead often rejects God outright. When God takes back His ‘loan’ of life, can you say He is wrong?

But as for people claiming to kill in the name of God, that’s another issue entirely.

The catholic church, over the previous 1500 years or so, never had “Zyclon b” and similar modern technology. There is little doubt that they would have used on anyone that did not follow their beliefs, it if they had the technology. – (eating potatoes was forbidden by the catholic church when they were first introduce t europe, because potatoes came from under ground where the devil lived!! – I wonder what god thought about that?)

The Catholic Church could easily have killed everyone the old fashioned way – colloquially known as the headchop.

“# Clark Bunch Says:
March 31, 08 at 4:10 am
I teach high school, so consider a 16 year old boy saying for instance that there is no God. There is also, therefore, no such thing as right and wrong.”

Most atheists have a much stronger sense of “right” and “wrong” than your average theist or religious person. Religion has been the cause of more pain, suffering, death, and wars than any other single factor by a long shot.
It’s simply easy to justify killing a criminal, or bombing a country if you make yourself believe that your god approves of it.

I don’t believe in religion anymore. I was raised in a very, very strict and religious household, and I used to believe every word of the bible. Yet I stole, I fornicated, I lied, I gossiped, etc. It was only a few years after I abandoned religion that I developed a very real set of personal ethics. I now care for and respect my fellow man more than ever. I don’t do anything that I feel to be “wrong,” and I define “wrong” as any act that would cause undue strife, misery, or sadness to any other person.

It’s completely ridiculous to say that because someone doesn’t believe in a god, to that person, the ideas of right and wrong don’t exist. It’s a human trait – just like emotions – sadness, happiness, etc. To say something so laughable is to insult anyone who doesn’t believe in a god – as if to say that nonbelievers are as dumb as animals, or unintelligent and uncaring thugs who only live for themselves. It’s insulting.

Your logic… confuses me… and you’re a teacher… I can’t even come close to comprehending how you could come up with something so.. wrong.

AND, as far as the original topic goes, Scott, you’re asking why it’s morally wrong, as if you believe atheists all believe that it is. I could be wrong. However, I don’t believe that it’s morally wrong, if it’s between two consenting adults. It’s just another victimless crime. How can it be wrong if it’s not hurting either person?

If neither party is being forced or coerced, and they’re both mentally competent to make that decision, I believe that although taboo, it isn’t morally wrong.

I don’t believe in religion anymore. I was raised in a very, very strict and religious household, and I used to believe every word of the bible. Yet I stole, I fornicated, I lied, I gossiped, etc. It was only a few years after I abandoned religion that I developed a very real set of personal ethics. I now care for and respect my fellow man more than ever. I don’t do anything that I feel to be “wrong,” and I define “wrong” as any act that would cause undue strife, misery, or sadness to any other person.

– Hmmm

I sympathize with your experience, but your life story is the opposite of most testimonies I read.

As for your other remarks, I don’t claim that atheists have no sense of right or wrong – merely that their definition is arrived at through relative and arbitrary criteria that can change depending on the precepts of the currently prevailing culture and consensus.

And while I understand and indeed, agree with your humanist definition of something that hurts anyone as being wrong. I would only like to add that in the Christian worldview, God is included in the equation – and He is hurt every time someone rejects His ways fro their own. (This is why the Pharisees were outraged that Jesus said He could forgive sins – because every sin also hurts God, therefore only God can forgive sins.)

What I am arguing is that while the majority of atheists DO NOT think incest is okay, they have NO VALID REASON to think that.

Do you support incest? No? Why not? Can you explain to me from a humanist point of view why incest is wrong? (Remember, no appeal to religion, tradition or gods.)

If you can’t, then why do you still feel it is wrong?

And THAT is the point of my post – that atheists have no justification to say incest is wrong, even while they feel strongly that it just has to be wrong.”
There was a point in our evolutionary history when humans depended on instinct more so than they did on philosophical matters. Maybe over many years of experience early humans developed a rudimentary knowledge of ‘Don’t mate with sister or mother because baby will have no arms’? Perhaps that genetic link to our past still fuels that natural revulsion many have today? And our religious history has a lot to play into modern time from the intellectual standpoint as well. Like homosexuality, I think it is a genetic aberration. Many gays that I know say they’ve known from a childhood age, prepubescent; that they were homosexual. Yet Nature has directed our DNA to survive. We have a lot to learn yet about genetics but, in time, I think we will find the answers to many questions.

Did you even read the article, you linked to, on the statistics of deformity in children from incestuous relationships? The article investigates first cousin relationships and not sibling relationships. The percentage of acquiring a pair of deleterious genes for the child from an incestuous relationship is 1 in 4.

These statistics are mirrored in society where many communities think first cousin relationships are acceptable but frown upon sibling relationships. As someone mentioned, it has been ingrained in our genetic code that sibling relationships lead to genetically-weak kids. If you think religion is the only acceptable reason, how do you explain that animals, who have a sense of kinship, rarely have incestuous relationships? Have they read the holy books too or did the ‘creator’ make them that way? If the creator did make them that way, humans should also be made that way, right? In which case, there is no need for the holy book or reason to adhere by it.

Yes, I did read the article. Which is why I asked: If there is nothing damaging about incest, then why don’t all atheists accept it? If not cousins, how about two homosexual identical twins?

Animals rarely have incestuous relationships? All I have to do is name a few domesticated breeds.

You know how to use the holy books as an argument, but you simultaneously display your lack of depth. Go read up on the fall of man, the effects of sin and the spoiling of God’s original perfect plan, and then come back and try your (hopefully better informed) amateur theology again.

Which holy books shall we read, Scott, that show definitive proof of your argument? What makes your “Truth” from the New Testament standpoint any ‘truer’ than the Old Testament, the Koran or Hindu? What would the ancient Romans, Greeks and Egyptians say about your “Truth” versus theirs or any aboriginal banging sticks around a bonfire and gibbering at the moon? It is you who bears the burden of proof for your extraordinary claims of a deity’s existence.

So far the evidence supporting Theory of Evolution has nearly achieved the status of Natural Law. It is as credible as the Theory of Atomics and Relativity. More so as it has expanded from not only being isolated to this planet but throughout the Cosmos.

But getting back to your question; I think you will find as many diverse answers as there are humans on this planet, enough to keep you amused.

On the theory of evolution, I was until recently unconvinced by the amount and detail of ‘evidence’ supporting it. It was too sparse, too vague, too circumstantial/possibly coincidental for my standard. Recently, the DNA link between therapod dinosaurs and modern birds has leaned me closer to accepting evolution as properly proven, since it is much less likely to be coincidence than, say, a ‘prehistoric whale ancestor with atavistic legs’.

Then the glory of Rome and the Pax Romana should lend equal credibility to the existence of Jupiter; the Roman namesake of Zeus, whose glory originated with the Ancient Greeks? And whose monuments stand to this day? The existence of Jesus is accepted by most Christians yet no physical evidence of his time on Earth exists other than the stories written by four men and the Shroud of Turin [which I find to be fascinating]. The key word is “Gods” or plural. Which truth is correct and what proof do you have other than the stories of men if its existence.

I find it odd that you would accept archeology and ancient scribe as your “proof” versus mountains of evidence that support Evolution. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html
I also find it odd that the religions of the world do not accept, based on their faith, the most fascinating mechinizations, chemical reactions, nuclear dynamics and astronomical phenomenon; all part of Cosmic and Terran Evolution, as more ‘proof’ of the greater intellect, mystery and glory of their God? You all claim God created everything. That would include Cosmic and Terran Evolution, black holes, magnetism, etc.; all of the amazing things there to be discovered and understood by humans.

Greek writer Celsus, the Talmud, Jewish historian Josephus, Roman historian Tacitus, Roman-Syrian satirist Lucian… These were all non-Christians, and most of them opposed to Christianity.

For me, the mechanism of evolution has yet to be demonstrated. When we look at fossils that seem to show a legged-whale, who is to say it is actually a transitionary form between ancient land mammals and modern Cetaceans? Isn’t it also likely that the fossil could be that of a mammal that has features in common with both land mammals and whales, but related to neither? (After all, birds and pterasaurs and bats have no relation despite their similarities.)

Which is why I said that the purported DNA link is intriguing to me, as it reduces the coincidence factor greatly.

I’m not sure where you get your notion that religion does not accept the wonders of science; Christianity often takes the complexity of the physical and living universe as argument and evidence of a Creator’s touch and intelligence (I’m sure you’ve heard of Intelligent Design).

Scott, Scott, Scott. I’m sure a million Mexicans or more have extra-biblical sources that mention the name Jesus as well. It doesn’t mean they’re all the son of God. And I am sure this person has played his important role in history, evidently. I did not say he didn’t exist, I said “…no physical evidence of his time on Earth exists other than the stories written by four men…” but I’ll stand corrected if it pleases you, he being mentioned in third persons.

“For me, the mechanism of evolution has yet to be demonstrated.” Well, for me, all I need to do is go look in a mirror and it all becomes very clear. Though I don’t exactly resemble an ape, regardless of what my wive says; nor what Darwin attempted to explain concerning the earliest of humans, “ape like creatures”.
I understand that attempts to prove transitional forms are very difficult with the fossil record because of the scarcity of such. I wonder how many species have lived and became extinct without leaving a trace of their existence behind. But Evolution occurs gradually over the course of millions of years in many cases so I really don’t expect scientists to instantly know every answer to every question immediately. It has only been what? 150 years since Darwin put forth his theory and so far all physical evidence continues to support it. Of course, back in Darwin’s day I think the world was at a lower literacy rate than today? Most Americans were more apt to believe the irrational rants of their local preacher over any man of science. Still do today in lesser numbers.

Religion has no choice but to accept the wonders of science. “Christianity often takes the complexity of the physical and living universe as argument and evidence of a Creator’s touch and intelligence (I’m sure you’ve heard of Intelligent Design).”

Oh indeed I have. It is the pseudo science concocted in a vain and sloppy attempt to propose an alternate view of Creation versus the Theory of Evolution and so far has yet to prove anything. It’s religion in “science clothing” and it simply does not hold up in the lab.

“Btw, since you’re so into science and ‘Terran Evolution’, what do you think about global warming?”
What’s with this “so into science” tone? I’m a layman, not a scientist. I’m interested in new discoveries, many of which I find fascinating. Especially astronomy. But I digress. What do I think about global warming? It is a naturally occurring phenomenon of this planet as is global cooling. Remember the ice ages, Scott? We studied that in grade school.
What I think you’re attempting to bait me with is some ultra liberal Al Gore argument and it’s not going to happen. I do think that now that our population is at what? 6 billion? And considering global industrialization and massive use of fossil fuels does affect climate to a degree. Ever spend a hot, smoggy month in NYC or LA? I understand Hong Kong is nearly unbearable. To deny the negative environmental impact of the growing human presence on this planet is not only foolish. It’s deadly. And it affects more than just the weather.
I agree with Carl Sagan that “It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

Again, why do you think that religion does not accept the ‘wonders of science’?

Can I not be a religious person and a scientist or believer in science simultaneously?

If not, would that exempt so-called alleged ‘scientists’ such as… Oh, I don’t know, most every influential scientist before the 20th century?

Didn’t the former Pope himself give his blessings to the Big Bang Theory which agrees with Christianity’s doctrine of creation ex nihilo, as opposed to the (once-upon-a-time ‘scientific’) idea of static state universe? (Oh hey, ‘spontaneous generation’ used to be ‘scientific’ too!)?

Does evolution being true automatically disprove religion? Or is theistic evolution exempted?

Is my underwhelmed reaction to scarce and vague fossils any less valid than your underwhelmed reaction to historically contemporary references to Jesus? (As opposed to modern references, there is a rather important difference, y’know.)

Why are the rants of a preacher automatically assumed or generalized to be irrational? Is this due to an inherent bias within your worldview?

Sorry for the delay, Scott. I never received the follow up email. Perhaps I neglected to click the check box?

Please. That would be a question you might want to ask one of your buddies, Ray Comfort. I don’t recall science ever taking on the offensive role in a concerted preconceived and planned effort to disprove religious dogma. It has been and is currently the other way around. Dogma feels threatened by scientific discovery that they have no control over.

Yes, you can be a religious person and a scientist or believer in science simultaneously. When and where did I say you can’t?

The Pope gave his blessings to the Big Bang because the scientific evidence supports it [try explaining that to your pal, Ray Comfort] and “A Belgian [Roman Catholic] priest named Georges Lemaître first suggested the big bang theory in the 1920s when he theorized that the universe began from a single primordial atom.” -National Geographic

Does evolution being true automatically disprove religion? Loaded question. I am an atheist so I don’t think there is any substance to a religion that evolution ‘needs’ to disprove. It simply is a fascinating field of study that theoretically explains our origins with much evidence that accumulates daily to validate and confirm it. Why are we mammals? Same as the wolf, the whale, the cat, the ape, the rat or the pig? And predatory omnivores at that?
Or is theistic evolution exempted? I have limited knowledge of the concept yet I believe it coincides with the approach I had mentioned earlier. It is a concept based on faith versus science and I can understand and appreciate that aspect of it. A more humble approach to the belief in a deity?
To answer “…my under whelmed reaction to scarce and vague fossils…” here is a Letter to the Editor that puts it into proper perspective:
“Two March 26 letters to the editor criticized a March 16 editorial about teaching evolution and creationism. One letter says “evolution is not fact”; in the other, “Informed” writes “For evolution to be true…” Both have fallen into the common trap of not understanding the meaning or implications of the term “theory.”

Science deals only with nature and the observable, not with bias or folklore. From observations (facts), it tries to generalize to laws. Neither facts nor laws, however, are explanations; they are simply descriptions of how nature behaves. Humans, with the sometimes fatal flaw of curiosity, are not satisfied with plain information. They want to know “why” the facts and laws are as they are, and so they dream up possible explanations, with the principal requirements that they meet the rules of logic and are in accord with the facts. After publication and criticism, those possible explanations which seem most plausible (best meet the stated criteria) are dignified by the term “theory”. They are used, modified, or discarded as indicated by future study. Among theories now discarded are the Phlogiston Theory of Combustion and the astronomical Theory of Orbital Epicycles.

Among the many scientific theories currently accepted and useful are the Theory of Evolution, The Atomic Theory, and the Theory of Relativity. None is “fact”; none is “law”; none is “true”; each is employed because it is in its own field the most credible, best in accord with the available facts. Each should be employed and taught with those reservations constantly in mind.

Not to teach the Theory of Evolution is to deprive students of an understanding of the current state of biology, geology, biochemistry and other fields. “Informed” quotes “Science Digest”: “all the evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin.”

That is sheer hyperbole; I would reply in kind that all evidence favoring creationism or other alternatives would not half fill a thimble.

“Why are the rants of a preacher automatically assumed or generalized to be irrational?” Because they are. Especially to an Atheist.
“Is this due to an inherent bias within your worldview?” No, it is based on direct observation and a lifetime of experience. There is nothing inherent about it. You will find who you are and where you were raised during your formative years will bias your worldview to an extent. That is not necessarily a bad thing. As an Eastern European growing up in a predominantly Mediterranean neighborhood in New York, the experience allowed me to appreciate the finer subtleties of that culture. Had I grown up, say, in San Francisco, I would have a greater appreciation and understanding of the Asian cultures.

Hi Scott – Ran across this in my wanderings and thought I would share it with you and your readers. It is in Yahoo! Answers by RickK:

The story of Genesis was the best that humans could devise 2000 years ago to explain how we all got here. By the standards of its day, it was a grand story.

But it’s foolish when people think it is an absolutely factual account of creation. It has no more merit than the creation stories of the Navajo or the Bantu or the Yanomami.

Besides, compared to what we NOW understand, Genesis is a pretty sad, small story.

“In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!”? Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” — Carl Sagan

A literal reading of the Bible tells us that God conjured the world out of nothing, then conjured man out of mud, and conjured woman out of a man’s rib. Nothing in the story was beyond the understanding of even the most humble people over 2000 years ago.

Science tells us that the universe came into existence through a cataclysm of immeasurable power, so strong that the heat from the event still warms the universe 13.5 billion years later. Science tells us of stellar birth and death, events so powerful they could strip the atmosphere off a planet from 1000 light years away. Science tells us of minerals created in the vast atomic forges in the center of giant stars. Science tells us of a massive, glorious dance of the heavens over billions of years, and of the creation of our precious planet among trillions of other stars and planets. Science tells us of an incredibly simple, elegant process of gradual change driven by the imperative to survive, leading to stunningly varied, adaptable, resilient life – life so vibrant and sweeping that it changed the very nature and composition of our planet.

The creation story of the Bible takes a few short verses, and hasn’t changed in 2000 years. The creation story of science consumes entire libraries, is supported by warehouses of samples and evidence, and is growing every day. The creation story of science challenges the comprehension of even modern, educated man, and science freely admits the story is not yet complete or fully understood.

Biblical literalists limit their god to a few 2000-year-old campfire stories. They need to let science into their faith, view science as the quest to better understand their god, and embrace and learn science rather than denying it. Treat the Bible as a moral lesson, as an allegory, not as a textbook. If they look at the glories beyond the Bible, and they can truly appreciate what their god has done.

people evolve and come to realise such things as incest is pervert and for those who are involved in it and who have been brought up together from child hood are missing something mentally. Its plain disgusting. The only kinda situation i can sort of understand is where children have been seperated at birth and later in life meet and sometimes fall in love as they say u are often attracted to someone who looks similiar to yourself. Anyone who says theres nothing wrong with incest need help themselves.

“So I’ll ask again – what basis do atheists, liberals and moral relativists have for the intolerance, bigotry and Dark Ages mentality they show when they denounce full blown, incestuous, unprotected anal intercourse between two adult brothers as ‘gross’?”

I have never heard any atheist express any of those things. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I’ve ever heard or read anyone bring this topic up. So my question to you is; by what source can you direct us to that illustrates Atheists showing intolerance, bigotry and Dark Ages mentality denouncing full blown, incestuous, unprotected anal intercourse between two adult brothers. Also answer why would a right wing, bible beating, conservative charlatan be exploring that particular scenario in the first place? Are you…….curious?

Without regard of me being either a religious man or an atheist, even Consensual Incest, not only rape within a family is very disgusting and those who do it should be ashamed of their families and their selves. It is so fvcking sick! Ok I do not know between first and second cousins but could you really think of a mother and a son having sex? Or a father and his daughter? Or two brothers? If you think this is ok then you have a really big mental problem! You also have a fvcking problem if you think this matter relates to any religious belief or being an atheist; no matter what, consensual incest is fvcking SICK, whatsoever!!!
I really do not understand your point here. Because if you are a religious man and you are trying to prove against atheists that they only think consensual incest should be illegal because deeply inside they are motivated by religion, then you should ask yourself from where did humanity according to the bible came from?>>>>>> >>>>CONSENSUAL INCEST!!!!! Thus we can come to the weird conclusion that God approves this disgusting thing.
Moreover an atheist does not mean he rejects the fact that the institution of family is an important one that needs to be respected and protected, nor does he defend it because of any hidden belief to any God. Of course family can be created between one man and a woman, or two men or two women, according only to their FREE WILL. But breaking blood connections is something totally different, which SHOULD be protected by the LAW.

Scott. It really doesn’t matter who responded to your question to this date. I want to know what prompted you to believe and/or illustrate any reference to the question you have posed. What real time incidents in this world has prompted you to ask:

“what basis do atheists, liberals and moral relativists have for the intolerance, bigotry and Dark Ages mentality they show when they denounce full blown, incestuous, unprotected anal intercourse between two adult brothers as ‘gross’?”

I would like to see that vast plethora of actual real time incidents that you have witnessed personally to ask such a question?

I had previously blogged on the subject of “What justification do non-religious people have for opposing bestiality?” Most often the response to this was “Because animals can’t actually make concious decisions of consent”.

Then one day I read in The Jawa Report about this case of two lesbian sisters getting it on, and complaining about the bias against hot sister on sister action. This got me thinking: what justification do non-religious people have for opposing incestual relations between adults where there is no possibility of offspring?

After all, a common criticism of monotheistic religious believers is that there is no objective, humanistic reason for objecting to consensual homosexual relations between adults. I therefore took it from there to ask the non-religious reader, what objective, humanistic reason is there for objecting to consensual incestuous relations between adults where there is no chance of impregnation?

Society in general objects to incest, yet no legitimate activism group for the promotion and legalization of incest seems to exist (as opposed to groups promoting homosexuality). Since liberals, humanists and the irreligious are so often the self-proclaimed leaders on matters of enlightened, progressive and just social causes, I reasoned that they ought to be at the forefront of championing the legalization of incest (at least certain kinds) if there were nothing intrinsically wrong about it (or certain brands of it). Neither do I ever see polemical attacks by atheists against Judeo-Christianity for its rejection of incest.

I therefore reasoned that there actually was such a thing as the atheist who objects to incest, and I wondered why.

So I put up this post, which was partly inquiry (Enlighten me on why) and partly provocation (If you can’t justify your stand, aren’t you being bigoted just like you say religionists are on homosexuality?).

To date, I’ve gotten a lot of viewpoints ranging from “I am atheist and think incest is sick” to “I am atheist and see no reason why the subject matter should be considered immoral”. But I haven’t had a single comment coherently justifying prejudice against incest.

I really do not understand your point here. Because if you are a religious man and you are trying to prove against atheists that they only think consensual incest should be illegal because deeply inside they are motivated by religion, then you should ask yourself from where did humanity according to the bible came from?>>>>>> >>>>CONSENSUAL INCEST!!!!! Thus we can come to the weird conclusion that God approves this disgusting thing.

1) The Bible never actually says that God did not create more humans after Adam and Eve or after the fall.

2) Having only had a few generations for the mutative effects of sin to accumulate (see The Sin Theory of Evolution), reproduction between closely related individuals would not have caused serious degenerative effects at this point in human ‘evolution’.

3) The Bible does not actually spell out that incest is wrong until waaaaaaay forward to Moses’ time in Exodus.

I’ll add another one:

4) When Adam and Eve sinned, they spoiled God’s perfect plan and perfect design for creation. Thus, we cannot assume that reproduction by incest was God’s original perfect plan – it could simply be that humanity’s rejection of God’s ways led to this occurrence.

So we must all understand that this god DID NOT KNOW what Satan, Adam & Eve and the whole of mankind was going to do BEFORE it ‘created’ them? Careful, there are a lot of variation’s out there that humans have attributed to this an other gods being…it knows the future.

Andreas, from my understanding and Muslims’ point of view, during the time of Adam a ‘juxtaposition marriage’ of siblings was allowed since there was no other partner to marry. So we cannot say it is exactly ‘incest’ like today’s situation where million of choices available. And that God made them so, and allowed. Qabil (Muslim name for one of Adam’s son) was born twin, and his brother Habil also born twin by the other female sibling. The rule was that, Qabil cannot marry his twin’ but his brother’s (Habil’s) twin. Only God knows best.

More or less (from Muslim’s view) situation that makes the different. Pork is strictly forbiden for Muslim but in case of real emergency such as in a war; or for instance you lost and starved in a jungle to the extent that you cannot find anything else to eat but pig/swine/pork – is allowed.

I’m not very interested to discuss incest – a filthy thing to my norm standard ! Pls allow me to shift and change topic (you can continue incest topic so that we get more opinions by other readers..)

My topic now is science versus God !

God created, provided us with grains (corn, maize, rice, oat etc) for our foods, but in my lifetime I have NOT, and NEVER witnessed science successfully invented or created any single grain to feed human beings or living creatures ! Not to mentions nice fruits (such as orange, apple, manggo, durian, grapes and thousand more..) but as far as man is concerned, science has NEVER created any single fruit or food for mankind; not to mention million fishes in the ocean and vegetations that are beneficial to man, animal and other living things.

God created million of things that can be benifitted for our life. Cotton, wool, silkworms etc for our clothes; plankton and fossils give us petroleum for our cars’ engine, rubber trees for its tyres etc. etc., but science has NEVER EVER created OUT OF NOTHING for mankind. “Out of nothing’ I mean if science can, don’t take God created materials such as glasss, sand, iron, or any other matters) -please create one your invention without taking any of God ‘ready made’ and the available matters and claimed to be yours!

God made billion of things to beautify the world, beatiful beaches, georgous mountain and canyons etc. Flowers are extremely beautiful for us to appreciate (for insects to be attracted to their nectar so that they help spread its pollen and help reproductions..).. but als science NEVER EVER created a single flower for my kids to admire.. (no plastic flower please…)

God created millions things that is impossible to mention all – for the benefit of mankind, living thins and other creatures.. oxygen for our lungs, water… oh..without water and sunlight.. I cant’ imagine.. we cannot survive whatsoever..

Before I begin, please note that with every polemic argument you intend to raise, there is a very high chance that I have already come across it before, even if just counting the few short years this blog has been open. So if you’re raising issues for educational purposes, do go ahead. But if you’re attempting a philosophical beatdown, you may want to dig around for a less common line of attack.

Now, as for your ‘question’ which I shall rephrase – How do we reconcile the seemingly exclusive concepts of God before omniscient, and God giving us free will to choose? If God already knows everything, then can we really make a choice in a universe where everything has been ‘pre-set’ by God?

My personally preferred response to this takes the form of a metaphor, which I shall recycle in whole from an earlier comment of mine.

———–

You know those gamebooks that were popular back in the 90s? The reader starts at page 1, but at the end of each page you are given a choice of which path to follow through the story and turn to the corresponding page. Depending on your choices, a huge number of possible combinations of paths can be taken to reach the end of the book (or die trying, curse you Fighting Fantasy!!!).

But what about the gamebook author? Even though there are numerous possible combinations, the author already knows what each choice will lead to – since he wrote the entire book. A keen enough author might even be able to remember each and every single possible path through the book, page by page and plot point by plot point. But this does not mean that the reader has no choice in the matter of how the story goes. The pages are there, but which pages the reader turns to is not set.

The gamebook is thus a metaphor for all creation and all history – an infinite number of possible combinations. The readers are us – all humans throughout all of history – deciding the path we (and history) take. And the gamebook author is, of course, God – already knowing every single one of the infinite combinations, but allowing us to choose how the story goes.

In this way, God can be omniscient (knowing everything that is to come) and at the same time not constrain the free will of humans and the path that history takes.

And just as all gamebooks have certain plot points that are inevitable, including the ending, history has certain junctions that will be reached – such as the birth of Jesus Christ and His future return. In this way, God can give prophecies through his prophets and have them come true without forcibly shoving history towards that direction.

————

So in direct answer to your question, God DID know what Satan, Adam & Eve and the whole of mankind COULD do – among the infinite number of possibilities they could choose – but allowed them to make the choices for themselves.

You could say that God allowed Himself to not know the choice they would make. This would be similar to how Jesus intentionally limited His powers while in human form.

If God did not limit His influence on us, then He could force us to do everything exactly as He preferred. Everyone would be forced to believe in Him everyone would be forced to accept Jesus as Lord, Adam and Eve would be forced to obey and never rebel against God. God could do this, being all powerful.

Where would free will be then? Why bother creating sentient beings then, instead of mere robots? Why not remove the forbidden fruit from the garden and leave there no way for Adam and Eve to practically reject God?

Just hack out a post bashing atheism and homosexuality using lots of Google-friendly key words (e.g. hot lesbian incest), perhaps add some links to well-trodden liberal blogs to initiate trackback links (which may even draw the attention of the blogger who might feature you in a bash-tastic post), and you’re all set!

Or, in my case, I don’t believe in your god nor those that preceded it and therefore none of your excuses apply.

But I am glad to see that you managed to come clean and expose your true colors with

“It’s easy, Ub…

Just hack out a post bashing atheism and homosexuality using lots of Google-friendly key words (e.g. hot lesbian incest), perhaps add some links to well-trodden liberal blogs to initiate trackback links (which may even draw the attention of the blogger who might feature you in a bash-tastic post), and you’re all set!”

Another quasi-intellectual troll on the internet snaring gullible fools [like myself] into arguing with you. See you at the next town hall meeting and don’t forget your tin foil hat.

Wow, over a year of responses on here. I’ll go ahead and be another suckerfish caught by the Troll.

I’ll just admit outright that yea, atheists, or agnostics almost deist which is where I would place myself (because just like with Christians – athiest vary quite widely in their beliefs) do have issues with determining right and wrong, and thus, as you have seen in the responses here, their opinions vary widely. The thing is, this sound just like Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, to me. I assume from what I’ve read that you claim a moral absolute given you by God in the Bible, is this correct? My response is pretty much summarized with “baloney”. This whole thread shows that you only respect some of what the bible says and ignore just as much. Lets start with “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.” Or perhaps, “Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, kindness and self-control, against such things there is no law”. Or “Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant” Don’t see a heck of obeying any of those in most of your replies, or even in the whole mocking intent of your thread. I would then surmise that you don’t consider these verses binding on yourself or have nothing to do with morality?
Or perhaps you are a prophet like Ezekial, or even Jesus, who had no problems mocking the unbelievers, or the wrong kind of believers such as Scribes, Pharasees and Hippocrites, so its OK for you to ignore those verses, too? But, well, lets just assume you simply forgot about them and slipped, but you really do believe them. So lets go on.

How about an easy one: “Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.” “Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy”. Quite clearly the 7th day of the week. And Jews ended up with a lot of stuff that describes what is acceptable to do or not do on the Sabbath, much from the Old Testament itself. I take it you keep all those? No? Perhaps instead you have some theological reason why it doesn’t apply to you any more? Its right before the passages outlawing many many different kinds of “incest” sexual relations with women (that are _any_ kind of close relative, not just biological relatives, btw). Oh, and it’s also in the big 10. But amazingly most Christians ignore it. Seventh Day Adventest tend not to, so maybe you are one of them, but many “mainline” denominations consider them almost a cult. So tell me, by what moral absolute do you determine whether mainline protestantism or catholocism has the Sabbath thing right, but the Seventh Day Adventists don’t? The command seems pretty much as clear as those against incest, and is in the same section (no chapters in the original bible you know).

Or how about that “Thou Shalt not Kill” command? Per my understanding the Hebrew actually says “You shall not slaughter uselessly”. What exactly does that mean? I assume all you christians agree on it right? So either you all are Pacifists, or your aren’t? Which is it? If you have a moral absolute, shouldn’t it be clear? Or how about capitol punishment. Certainly you are all against it aren’t you? No, you are all for it? Some are for and some are against? How do you know which of you is right? I take it you have an absolute understanding of it that is absolutely clear? If not, then what it the use of your claim for an absolute standard for morality?

How about some other commands:
“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman.” Killed any Christians that committed adultery lately? Why not? My guess is you use the old “This doesn’t apply to Christians anymore” argument. So then why does Leviticus, including the sections on incest, apply anymore? Perhaps you’ll make up something else for “oh wait, we do still use those”. Perhaps Acts 15:29 (and the whole argument around it)? Wait, no command to honor your father and mother, or not to steal, or not to murder there though. But beware that blood from strangled animals. You do think its immoral to eat anything that was strangled don’t you (might still have blood in it)? Pretty clear there. And how about salvation itself, outside of morality? One sect (Churches of Christ) claims Baptism is necessary to salvation: Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” Acts 2: 37 “When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” And almost everywhere in the new testament where people believed they were immediately baptized. But if you are part of the mainstream of Christianity, you probably don’t accept this. But why should I believe you are right and they are wrong? It may seem clear to you, but it isn’t to me, or to the Church of Christ/Christian Churches group. Who’s right here, and how do you know for sure? Why is Baptism at all even mentioned if its just a ritual? Where does a stupid ritual belong in a faith based religion?

I could go on and on with many other examples of verses that most Chrsitians pretty much ignore, or interpret in widely varying ways. James on “saved by my works and not by faith only”, which Luther called the Epistle of Straw and ignored completely. Was he right, or perhaps you prefer the word twisiting others use to make this fit with Paul’s saved by faith stuff (oh, but Paul never says Faith alone, only James does, in the negative).

So, ok, Athiests may or may not have a poor basis for saying or not saying Incest is wrong. But I don’t see where you can claim any moral absolute either. What good is your Word of God when most of you can’t even agree on what it says? Wait, let me guess, Somehow you, Scott Thong, interpreted it _all_ correctly, and know what to ignore and what not to ignore because, er, why? God clarified it for you? Wait, isn’t that the Pope God does that for? Or maybe John Calvin, or Martin Luther, or Ellen G White, or George Fox, or Joseph Smith, or who?

You imply by your question (and say in later responses) that you have a moral absolute given you by God. I say, bullcrap, if you can’t know the correct understanding for sure, and since there is such wide disagreement among Christians about what much of it says – proving it is not understandable, then it is of no real use even if it were. I can’t trust your interpretation of it, that’s for sure.

Don’t see a heck of obeying any of those in most of your replies, or even in the whole mocking intent of your thread. I would then surmise that you don’t consider these verses binding on yourself or have nothing to do with morality? – Pete Moss

You totally got me there… Pierced right through my heart.

Truth is, my preferred style that encompasses mocking, sarcasm and snarking doesn’t really fit within the mould of the ‘classical (stereotypical) good little Christian’. I’m more of an Ann Coulter than a CS Lewis (though the latter wasn’t one to refrain from polemics when the situation called for it.)

I’ve been called out several times by friends and family – “What benefit does it bring to

And I must admit that while I know I should tone down my rhetoric, I find it just too enjoyable to be the snarker I find can play so easily. Call it the typical blogger’s mentality of constant criticism.

You tell me it isn’t enjoyable to eviscerate someone’s worldview with an avalanche of criticisms and belitting, point by painful point. I mean, it’s sooooo much easier and more entertaining to launch a flurry of assaults and watch the receiver flounder to respond to each and every one of them, right? You’re doing it on my blog right now.

Perhaps one day, I will be a perfect person. I wonder if you would be so kind as to be a example to me? :>

—————————————–

I take it you keep all those? No? Perhaps instead you have some theological reason why it doesn’t apply to you any more?

Here we go into proper theology – but remember, most every criticism and question you have already has 2000 years of Christians pondering over the answer.

On the regulations of the Sabbath in every detail down to each dot and comma, Jesus Himself gave us the example by tossing most of the Pharisees’ exegesis out the window. Instead of the letter of the law, He focused on the spirit of the law, i.e. refraining from the rat race for one day so we can remember God. He also took quite a lot of flak from them for such things as eating wheat (“No farming on the Sabbath!”) and healing a man (“No doctoring on the Sabbath!”).

Heck, the Pharisees even took issue with Jesus making a lame man walk, because the man picked up and carried the mat he had been sitting on, which to them was against Moses’ laws – literally no carrying one’s mat on the Sabbath, which actually referred to bringing wares to sell at market. This is what happens when the letter of the law reigns supreme.

But I’m kinda surprised you know about the Bible originally having no chapters, but not knowing about Jesus’ Sabbath controversies. Or are you just selectively citing information in order to benefit your argument?

(And if you want a belief system that is ‘more righteous than the Pharisees’ and with a similar list of dos and don’ts in minute detail rather than general guidelines, try Islam.)

—————————————–

So tell me, by what moral absolute do you determine whether mainline protestantism or catholocism has the Sabbath thing right, but the Seventh Day Adventists don’t?

Well, on the one hand many Protestants consider the Roman Catholics to be a wayward cult, and the Seventh Day Adventists to be mainstream!

The reason for the co-existence of so many denominations is that each has its own understanding of ‘minor’ theological points, such as what day the Sabbath is on or whether rock music can be played at service.

Generally, the focus is then on the spirit of the law, not on the letter. There are many churches in Muslim majority countries that hold their services on Friday, as Friday is a holiday there while Sunday is a working day. But what happens on that Friday is basically indistinguishable from a Western church’s Sunday, and that is what counts.

So what constitutes a major theological point? Things like whether Jesus is God or whether only His sacrifice can, which are two criteria that are usually used to differentiate between ‘mainstream’ and ‘cult’.

—————————————–

How do you know which of you is right? I take it you have an absolute understanding of it that is absolutely clear? If not, then what it the use of your claim for an absolute standard for morality?

Ah, actually a previous a commentor helped me see what you’re getting at here.

To paraphrase, the religious hold to the commands of their deity to be the absolute standard of morality. However, they each interpret the commands differently, making the practical application a relative one.

This can be compared to the humanistic irreligious, who hold ‘human wellbeing’ to be the absolute standard of morality. However, they each have their own understanding of ‘human wellbeing’, making the practical application a relative one.

Thus, in essence, both philosophies are absolute in theory and relative in practise.

Realizing this has changed my outlook on this issue; now it’s down to whether current society actually knows what is ‘best for humanity’ whereas all previous society’s are judged to have been flawed on the subject.

—————————————–

How about some other commands:
“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman.” Killed any Christians that committed adultery lately? Why not? My guess is you use the old “This doesn’t apply to Christians anymore” argument. So then why does Leviticus, including the sections on incest, apply anymore?

I did a whole post on this before, and don’t really fancy rehashing it in the comments section yet again.

On incest in particular, the mantra “What Did Jesus Say or NOT Say?” comes in handy. Did Jesus overturn the then-current prevailing beliefs of the local Jews (e.g. on kosher food and temple worship)? If so, then Christians can take that as an example. Did Jesus NOT overturn those beliefs? If so, then Christians can take THAT as an example.

If Jesus was such a thorough reformer, why didn’t He make any mention of accepting homosexuality as well?

Instead, he uttered specific words that were specifically in line with the standard views of the time – heterosexual relationships only, within marriage only.

If Jesus was really supportive and accepting of homosexuality as certain parties argue, wouldn’t Matthew 19 and Mark 10 have been the perfect chance for Him to make known God the Father’s will?

‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife or husband, and the two will become one flesh.’ – What Jesus did not say, not-Matthew 19 and not-Mark 10

But nope, not a peep from Jesus about demolishing prevailing 1st-Century era sexual-behaviour prejudices.

Could it be that Jesus DID NOT consider homosexuality to be holy and acceptable in God’s eyes? And thus, intentionally did not overturn the disapproving traditional attitudes towards homosexuality?

—————————————–

Why is Baptism at all even mentioned if its just a ritual? Where does a stupid ritual belong in a faith based religion?

Baptism is merely a ritual that acts as a public proclamation of one’s Christian faith. That is why it is usually made up to be a big event in a person’s life. If someone is too afraid to undergo public baptism (such as an ex-Muslim in Saudi Arabia), what does this say about his conviction in the faith?

A quick illustration: Some believers complain that not allowing the un-baptized to share in communion is discriminatory. In response to this, we ask: What good reason do you have for NOT wanting to be baptized, and then sahring in communion?

Clubs and organizations all can have rituals that must be undergone before accepting new members – why can’t churches? Or is the Pledge of Allegiance a stupid, empty-words-only ritual for new American citizens?

—————————————–

Wait, isn’t that the Pope God does that for? Or maybe John Calvin, or Martin Luther, or Ellen G White, or George Fox, or Joseph Smith, or who?

As any Christian knows, only Jesus was perfect and only the prophets and the Apostles were perfectly guided by God. As any cultists knows, this also applies to the founder of their group.

—————————————–

You imply by your question (and say in later responses) that you have a moral absolute given you by God. I say, bullcrap, if you can’t know the correct understanding for sure, and since there is such wide disagreement among Christians about what much of it says – proving it is not understandable, then it is of no real use even if it were. I can’t trust your interpretation of it, that’s for sure.

Even if the religious end up relying on relative interpretation, there is still one major difference from the irreligious – the original source of the divine command is still there with the absolutely correct interpretation.

And as you probabaly know, Christians believe that one day, Jesus will return and prove once and for all who interpreted right, and who interpreted wrong. End of story! All relativity ceases once the absolute measuring rod becomes immediately available.

Whereas for the irreligious, there will never be a conclusion – they can debate based on their relative understanding until infinity.

So I put up this post, which was partly inquiry (Enlighten me on why) and partly provocation (If you can’t justify your stand, aren’t you being bigoted just like you say religionists are on homosexuality?). – Scott

Or did you just skip through it in order to get to the snarking faster?

Another quasi-intellectual troll on the internet snaring gullible fools [like myself] into arguing with you. See you at the next town hall meeting and don’t forget your tin foil hat.

Hmm, the verses I quoted are from what _you_ claim are the word of god, not me. I would think they would be binding on you, yet even so, you continue to ignore them even with that little comment, I see. Oh well, minor point. BTW, I don’t like being snarky. When I began reading this thread, I was interested in what everyone had to say, but by the end of it, I was in that mood too. I don’t despise your opinion, but I do dislike the tone, on both sides of the discussion. You claim to have an absolute standard from God, not me, so it seems you me you should be better than the snarky fundamentalist athiests. I’m not one of them. But I’m not a christian either.

>>On the regulations of the Sabbath in every detail down to each dot and comma, Jesus Himself gave us the example by tossing most of the Pharisees’ exegesis out the window. Instead of the letter of the law, He focused on the spirit of the law, i.e. refraining from the rat race for one day so we can remember God. He also took quite a lot of flak from them for such things as eating wheat (”No farming on the Sabbath!”) and healing a man (”No doctoring on the Sabbath!”).<>On incest in particular, the mantra “What Did Jesus Say or NOT Say?” comes in handy. Did Jesus overturn the then-current prevailing beliefs of the local Jews (e.g. on kosher food and temple worship)? If so, then Christians can take that as an example. Did Jesus NOT overturn those beliefs? If so, then Christians can take THAT as an example.<>And as you probabaly know, Christians believe that one day, Jesus will return and prove once and for all who interpreted right, and who interpreted wrong. End of story! All relativity ceases once the absolute measuring rod becomes immediately available.<<

I'm glad to see you completely agree with my point, except for accepting the obvious conclusion. You originally claimed an absolute standard that you had in the bible given you from God, but now you amend it to say, ok, we have relative differences in how we interpret it, but oh, in the end Jesus will clear everything up. So again, I say, you have no absolute standard here and now. You don't know any more than any other christian does which ones Jesus would chose. if he did exist. Thus, your claim to having an absolute standard disappears. You claimed one for now, not the next life, if there were such a thing. But I take it you concede this now, and so say:

"Now it’s down to whether current society actually knows what is ‘best for humanity’ whereas all previous society’s are judged to have been flawed on the subject."

There are many, including myself, who would say it would be utter foolishness to ignore the history of morality, or the ideas about it from either the Bible or anywhere else from the past. There is no evidence that humans today are any more intelligent than they were 5 to10 thousand years ago. However, our society and culture is vastly different, and it would be foolish to ignore how it has changed and foolish to ignore the improvements brought about by technology, medicine, democracy (an old idea, but not widely implemented till recent centuries) and so forth. But "why did those cultures have such laws, what did they intend to accomplish, and how effective where they in doing so, and is there a way we can apply this to today, or are our goals different" are all questions that make sense to me. But to just buy into it all because Christians say its the word of God? Sorry, not buying that…

I suppose one key difference between our philosophies lies in your last paragraph. As I posted before, the theist believes that God is the only authority able to change the definition of ‘moral’, whether or not

And yes, I haven’t had an absolutely convincing argument for here-and-now-morality ever since I came to realization on relative interpretation. I continue to seek and await the next realization which may or may not provide me with a new solid argument and shift my paradigm (as has happened with evolution and global warming before).

Yet, theists have a key set of guidelines in the form of their holy texts to serve as a basis for the interpretation. So while there may be specific quibbles over exactly what ‘worship’ or ‘gods’ means, the general idea of ‘Do not worship other gods’ is quite clear cut to the layman.

At the very worst, theists argue over their relative interpretation of an absolute text, rather than argue over their relative interpretation of their relative humanistic values.

But very good point on not buying something just because a group of people buy it. Else, there would be no distinguishing between the various religions, each claiming to be correct.

You know what is moral and immoral?With different groups,cultures,races,
nations,it changes.Something that is moral in some part of the world is immoral in some other part of the world.There is nothing absolutely moral or immoral.You ask this but I want to tell you this,
(1)Consensual sex,incestuous or not of any kind is not immoral.
(2)Non-consensual sex,incentuous or not of any kind is immoral because
here you are hurting someone else.

Please tell me if you find out ‘absolute ethics’ with a proof not just belief.

A belief becomes a value, a value becomes a moral, a moral becomes an ethic and an ethic becomes a law. These stages are not the same for every culture or society. There are cultures that do practice incest while others do not. There are cultures that engage in child sex and others do not etc… What we have here is an issue of Sexual Morality and where that Moral originates from is what will give the various answers we have thus far.

From my stand point, have no issue with incest so long as its not forced. People that have posted thus far have made their cases based on how they were raised and or developed as a person over time. Funny thing is, the U.S. professes to be so moral yet it is the largest producer of porn I the world. Our history is puritan based and that in itself was torture for a good many people.

Interesting topic and an atheist may not believe in God so they may not state from a theist position why incest is wrong, they will likely make the case from what they have learned and been exposed to over their own life just as a Theist does. Some have presented that our human wiring suggests we not have incest relations.

I am willing to bet if a brother and sister Mother Son and Father Daughter were on an island alone for a long period of time, sexual urges will prevail and the incest relation will take place.

I don’t know what being an atheist or believer has to do with incest. First faith in god is not directly connected in any way with your biological urges. Or, of there is a god who created all this then he also created the urge. So if two fully grown adults (what ever be their relationship) want to have sex, it is their private business. Because by logic if god created the attraction he cannot then complain of it. On the other hand if no such being exist and we are randomly generated cre4atures, then the randomness itself allows us no premise to draw lines between one animal and another (considering all humans are animals) and therefore the biological functions are purely interpersonal. However, which ever an individual subscribes to, the biggest mafia created by society – religion and the state will see to it that you will never live free.

if they do that then their systems will collapse
That is why. There is no other reason

Or, of there is a god who created all this then he also created the urge. So if two fully grown adults (what ever be their relationship) want to have sex, it is their private business. Because by logic if god created the attraction he cannot then complain of it.

This pre-supposes that the aforementioned god intended for this type of urge to exist.

According to JudeoChristian theology, YHWH did not create or intend for such urges except for one-man, one-woman, within-marriage heterosexuality – all the rest are the result of human free will choosing to reject YHWH’s plans and perhaps the influence of the devil. (The Sin Theory of Evolution)

Therefore, YHWH can – and does – complain about it.

On the other hand if no such being exist and we are randomly generated cre4atures, then the randomness itself allows us no premise to draw lines between one animal and another (considering all humans are animals) and therefore the biological functions are purely interpersonal.

That is what ‘what being an atheist or believer has to do with incest’.

However, which ever an individual subscribes to, the biggest mafia created by society – religion and the state will see to it that you will never live free.

This is a package deal fallacy – religion and the state are by no means synonymous or always linked. What do you think ‘Separation of Church and State’ refers to?

Ironic, isn’t it, that the instances where the State had the greatest power and control to carry out unspeakable abuses of human rights against hundreds of millions – the true ‘biggest mafia’ – have been overwhelmingly atheist?

“Ironic, isn’t it, that the instances where the State had the greatest power and control to carry out unspeakable abuses of human rights against hundreds of millions – the true ‘biggest mafia’ – have been overwhelmingly atheist?”

Please, Scott. You are clueless to the numbers slaughtered throughout the millenia by empires who considered any dogma but their own to be infidels whether it was Rome, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and before. The driving factor for these conquerors has rarely been for religious purposes, usually an afterthought, but more for treasures, power and slavery. You clowns always name Hitler and Stalin and yet their motives were not driven by religion but rather those who they perceived to be a threat to their agenda. Much like the whining minority of the Christian Right, which is neither, today.
On the other side of the coin you may as well blame my 80 year old mother, a devout Roman Catholic, for the crimes of the Spanish Inquisition.
That is how ridiculous your statement is.

That’s 55.6 million there, and that’s not even all the Commie actions listed. So that’s just, oh, more than the total number of people alive in 1000 B.C. when the ancient Romans, Egyptians and Mesopotamians were running around ‘killing infidels’.

Atheistic Communists did multiple time more damage in 100 years than Christian Monarchies did in 2000.

Critics of religion will cite the Crusades and the Inquisition etc and argue that religious teachings like “Only my religion is right!” and “Pagans must die!” influenced the aggressive behaviour of believers.

I simply argue from the other end, that the gross indiscretions of the Communist bloc are a result of there NOT being any religious teachings like “Thou shall not murder!” or “Be good or God will punish you!”, leading to the scenario where humans are the ultimate, absolute authority.

On the other side of the coin you may as well blame my 80 year old mother, a devout Roman Catholic, for the crimes of the Spanish Inquisition.

Ah, but see, she wasn’t alive back then. Nor was she the head of the Inquisitors. Nor did the Spanish worship her or follow her every word. So this is a straw man argument.

What I am doing is blaming atheism, a philosophy, for the Communist atrocities. So a more accurate comparison would be to say “You may as well blame the beliefs of my 80 year old mother, a devout Roman Catholic, for the crimes of the Spanish Inquisition.”

Which would be quite a valid argument actually.

However, I admit that there are indeed plenty who would kill solely for religious purposes. I believe that they’ve been dying in droves as of late.

Well, it is true that NeoCons are masters of the blame game but it seems pretty far reaching to blame Atheists based on an imaginary philosophy which you claim exists. I am more apt to think that it was the ulterior motives of those in power who regarded those of faith as threats to their reign, yet they were not the only ones who were killed. The examples of your faith are running strong now between the Christian Peacemakers, the Jewish Chosen Ones and the Faithful Muslims in the Holy Land. Their continuing wars over the last 8 centuries or more and their more recent acts of terror solidify my resolve as an Atheist. You choose delusion, I choose reality.

Really? I thought the Moonbats were the experts at wielding blamethrowers.

You make the usual atheist error of confusing all religions to be the same. Which religion teaches love and peace as opposed to hate and war – and why can’t you separate the belief from the believer?

Yes, you can say that religious fervor caused the Inquisition, Crusades and so forth. But is it the fault of the teachings or the fault of the misguided/disobedient follower?

Let me give you two examples of the above to compare and hopefully understand:

1) Jesus says love your enemy and YHWH says ‘Thou shall not murder’. So is a self-professed Christian thus following Christian teachings when he bludgeons an atheist mocker?

2) Atheism is supposed to be based on logic. So were the millions who blindly followed the Communist leaders to their own misery and self-destruction following logic?

Caught the difference between official belief and fallible believer yet?

The simple fact of reality is that when avowed atheists came into power, 100 million people died and a whole lot more suffered. That all the major Communist leaders happened to be atheists cannot be due to sheer coincidence.

Coming strictly from an Agnostic point of view, I’d have to say that I’m rather Pro-Incest. I wouldn’t say this makes me wrong, sick, or hold a serious mental illness. Just rather that this is who I am.

I would love to know from atheists ‘once for all’ (by a simple explanation): where did matters come from ? Remember billion of years ago, they were all not existed at time of the absence of time and space.

The lengthy theories would not help(even cannot be proven, after all) wouldn’t help for a comman man like me – the majority of peoples on earth.

Very true, Bob. There are those in this world who simply cannot say the phrase “I don’t know.” and will do anything to conjure some dream world that makes sense to them, no matter how delusional; injecting human attributes into the creation of their “god”. And there have been many throughout human history and all “true” to those who believe.

Then there are those quite content and comfortable with the phrase because it is followed by “But we’ll find out.” and dedicate their lives to studying the complexities of the Universe which I am finding to be much more exciting than all of the fantasies of current dogmas in the world.

Nope, Adifferentview means the opposite: some people are so deluded by their ignorance that they think that the search for answers to the complexities of the universe began with non-believers or sceptics or atheists. In their uninformed arrogance, they think they are the ones who started the investigation when really they are latecomers.

In answer to Nasaei Ahmad asking where matter and the universe came from is like asking where god came from.

if you assume everything had a cause then there will always be one thing you can’t explain.

in short we don’t have an answer but nether do you.

– Bob

Well, actually we monotheists believe that everything created or that had a beginning must have a cause. Since God was not created or have a beginning, we therefore have an answer for what was there from before the universe began.

At present, the best answer from science is the side-stepping of cyclical universes, which simply pushes the First Cause back an infinite number of steps. It’s like ignoring the question and distracting from it will make it go away.

In my own opinion, If you are stating that, “Incest Should be Legal”. I agree, I strongly agree. Incest with close relatives, does not lead to deformities, Yes, It has a bit of a higher chance, ALTHOUGH, it does not majorly lead to it. There have been so many articles and research into this, and it isnt even bad. There was a German Man and German Woman, Brother and sister, that had four babies together, none of their babies were physically deformed nor mental for that matter.

I say, It should be legal, if it is consensual! I say, If you find it disgusting or don’t like it, don’t do it, It’s as simple as that, it’s just like smoking or drinking, you don’t like it, DON’T DO IT!

Now, now Scott. No need to be patronizing here, then again this is your blog so I guess you can say what ever you wish, eh?

No, Scott, I would be more apt to say “we” are god. Humans created god in their image, likeness and conceit in order to rule other humans. Tell me, Scott. Does god have a nose? A penis? Breast’s? Of course you can fall back on the old “spiritual likeness” interpretation, but there are those believers who claim “his” description is literal. So which is it? Which is [trumpet intro] “The Truth”?

Besides, you all, being all believers since the beginning of human history, prove god doesn’t exists on a regular basis by your conflicting beliefs, actions and delusional claims. Atheists don’t need to prove anything. You all do it for us.

Now, now Scott. No need to be patronizing here, then again this is your blog so I guess you can say what ever you wish, eh?

Well, this being an open comments blog, basically anyone can say anything they wish, with a few exceptions:

1) Cussing will be bowdlerized after the fact
2) Racism or other outright insults will also be bowdlerized
3) Remarks that are likely to get the blog owner (me) arrested will also be edited

No, Scott, I would be more apt to say “we” are god. Humans created god in their image, likeness and conceit in order to rule other humans.

Funny, that’s the exact same argument I use applied to the atheists Communists like Lenin, Stalin and Mao and their 100 million strong massacres. When there’s no god and no god’s rules, who becomes god and makes all the rules, including over life and death?

So which is it? Which is [trumpet intro] “The Truth”?

Besides, you all, being all believers since the beginning of human history, prove god doesn’t exists on a regular basis by your conflicting beliefs, actions and delusional claims. Atheists don’t need to prove anything. You all do it for us.

Ah Robert, you display a common fallacy – that just because there are some religionists who disagree, therefore all their claims are wrong.

Tell me, does the Second Amendment give the right to carry handguns for self defence against crime? Or does it only apply for hunting purposes? Many Americans disagree on the correct interpretation, so using your logic, we must conclude that the Constitution does not exist!

The correct understanding would be that there is a possibility that one of the religions is right. Just because they can’t all be right simultaneously, what with all their conflicting and contradictory claims (just take atheistic Buddhism’s reincarnation and Monotheistic Christianity’s ressurection for one example), does not mean that none of them are right. The three major monotheistic religions in fact make the claim that they are right and all non-monotheistic beliefs (including polytheism and atheism) are wrong in their interpretation of God.

In fact, the correctness of any one religious belief has nothing to do with whether or not a supernatural entity actually exists. It could be that all the major religions have their idea of deity wrong, and god is actually a giant bowl of omnipotent jello (yes, even the Pastafarians were mistaken!). But that still means that a god of sorts exists.

1. Consenting individuals (not neccesarily adults) of the same kin should be allowed form any type of sexual relations that they so desire without fear of persecution.

2. I DO NOT think that incestuous couples should have children, the pressure on the child from the society that he/she grows up in would be severe. Please do not say that keeping his geneology a secret from him/her would be a satisfactory solution; I do not believe that anyone should live in ignorance, even a blissful one.

3. As for a reason why the incest taboo arose in the first place, and reason why it still prevails: sex has a way of messing up relationships, and if the relationship was to go sour, especially if the relationship was within a nuclear family, this would put enourmous stress on the other family members to keep the peace.

I don’t dispute that there’s nothing inherently wrong with incest. I think that people who call for “equal love, equal rights” are hypocrites if they support homosexuality but want to keep incest illegal. If both (or all) people involved are mature enough to make the decision, then go for it. Why should I get in the way? It isn’t hurting me, and with contraceptives there won’t be the normal risk of birth defects, so it won’t be hurting any other lives. Who exactly does it endanger?

This risk of genetic anomalies is even why a lot of Christians say that God forbade incest. They said it was alright before the Fall (or flood, take your pick), when the world was “pure”, whatever that means aside from an abstract idea, but that it became dangerous after that, which is why God forbade it.

So I pose an identical question to the religious folk: why do YOU think God disapproves of incest at some points in the Bible, but at others he effectively gives tacit consent via silence?

One side note:

Sex with children, often tied up with either this or the homosexuality debate, is a whole different animal–as is bestiality, pardon the pun. Children ARE to young to make an informed decision. At what age should they be allowed to make the decision, I don’t know, but we draw arbitrary lines in the sand of age/maturity for marriage as it stands now, so that’s no big change. Pick a number, 16 or 18 sounds good to me. As for bestiality, animals can never give the kind of informed consent required for a social contract like marriage or the equivalent of the explicit “yes” often referenced in rape trials.

“But that still means that a god of sorts exists.” No it doesn’t. It contests the existence by just another delusion. You keep forgetting that it is the theists making the extraordinary claim of something that cannot be proven to exist in any universe. But here we go again where you start chasing your tail with the “prove that god doesn’t exist” nonsense where I again say “How does one prove the nonexistence of something that does not exist?” Fortunately reality and reason is on my side.

So what is it about incest that turns you on, Scott? You have another bestiality blog as well. My your thoughts travel through some very bizarre concepts in your quest to corner and intellectually pummel Atheists. Do you equate Atheists with Liberals, Scott?
Is that what is at the core of every neocons existence? Attempts to elevate themselves by conjuring unusual scenarios surrounding those who do not possess their twisted brand of thought?
Bet you’re a big Fox fan, eh Scott?

I tried to see things from your “Adifferentview” but I simply could not get my head that far up my butt.

So you clowns ask stupid questions when your not banging sticks around the bonfire and gibbering at your moon-gods for a good hunt tomorrow, and when you’re questioned about it you get all huffy, your snotty noses lifted high in the air in self righteous indignation. Typical one sided right wing loser.

Read what you’ve just written and you should be able to see how upset you are, how irrational and illogical you are…not to mention that you’re huffing and puffing coz you’re unable to bully anyone into accepting your view.

Why do people use foul language? You won’t need psychoanalysis to explain that. It’s because we’re angry, frustrated, upset..and we experience a host of negative emotions surging inside, trying to get out. From the mouths of men come evil words…from the keyboards of men-who-can’t-get-their-own-way-with-others come foul words. Calm down, it’s a discussion, not war.

Well, ADF, when attempts at rational discussion are met with derision and insult you can expect negative result. I don’t consider myself being upset or irrational while writing any of the above. If you were sitting here next to me you would know that I am either chuckling or laughing my way through this nonsense with you.

Foul language? I’ve been kind. Have you led a sheltered life? My years in the Armed Forces have taught me, besides how to kill efficiently, fight fires, CPR, that we are all the same in flesh and blood and how to make “real coffee”; a wide range in the vernacular of vulgarity, colorful metaphors, expletives and seriously nasty things I would never repeat. And in several languages. So though it really isn’t anything to brag about it is the exposure that I do value and the experiences surrounding those occasions.

Oooo…..a soldier..a Marine? Special Forces? Kill them when they resist? Kill them with your words when you can’t get them to see your reasoning? I don’t know what you’re doing there…but laughter is good medicine.

So I pose an identical question to the religious folk: why do YOU think God disapproves of incest at some points in the Bible, but at others he effectively gives tacit consent via silence? – Adam

If you’ll note, the first clear condemnation of incest in the Bible occurs in Leviticus 18, where God’s rules for human behaviour – including sexual relations – are first codified and have remained in force until now (with the exception of whatever laws Jesus fulfilled, see here under the ‘Jesus said’ section).

Before that time, you could indeed say that God ‘effectively gives tacit consent via silence’. The same could go for other rules ‘first seen’ in Moses’ laws, including worship of other gods and stealing.

Why didn’t God lay out all the laws from the beginning? (Well, perhaps He did, but if so then the writer of Genesis did not think it necessary to include them.) The same could be said of Jesus’ sacrifice – why didn’t God simply send Jesus immediately after the Fall? Or why did He even let the Fall happen in the first place, or bother making creation at all?

For those topics, it’s a little too deep and the range of answers too wide for me to cover here.

On bestiality, this commentor claims that his dogs engage in it with him of their own free will. No opinion forthcoming from me on that one…

Leviticus, eh Scott? Lots of rules and behavioral scenarios in Leviticus, and others. My question is, just out of curiosity, are they an addendum to the Big 10? You know? Like here we have the Ten Commandments everyone gets all huffy and riled about, as if humans cannot exist without it or did not possess the intelligence to come up with most of them on their own, right? So are the Leviticus and other rules and regulations like sticky notes to the Ten? Why didn’t they just add them all to the Ten? Because “Ten” is a power number? Anymore would diminish its authoritative value or something. The late George Carlin does a great skit on this.

You’re not missing anything on Fox that you can find at any news stand that sells cheap, sensational third rate tabloid rags. And think of this when you ogle over the “vast” numbers ranging from 2 to 3.8 million. True, their viewer ship meets or exceeds the combined total of the rest of the cable news networks in prime time. Personally I think it’s for its comedic value but that’s just my opinion, and I digress; ask yourself what the other 99% of the USA is doing? Watching sports, sitcoms, drama, reality, movies, cop shows, porn, or reading a book, etc.; or nothing at all because they’re out doing something or in bed. Think of that before you think quoting Fox’s numbers are going to impress anyone outside of their fan base.

I know how much you love copy/paste, Scott, so here’s a Wikipedia note on your George Mason and Center for Media reference. Yep, they’re a credible source all right. Heh, heh, heh.

Funding

The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has challenged CMPA’s non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources, and that its founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor.[18][19] After a Washington Post article referred to CMPA as “conservative,” the Post published a “Clarification,” which concluded, “The Center describes itself as nonpartisan, and its studies have been cited by both conservative and liberal commentators.”[20]

Progressive organization MediaTransparency (now run by Media Matters for America, itself a liberal organization[21]) documented that between 1986 and 2005 CMPA received 55 grants totaling $2,960,916 (unadjusted for inflation). The organization, which collated information from returns filed by numerous conservative foundations, found that 86% of CMPA’s total funding came from conservative-leaning foundations.[citation needed]

Hmmm. So if we of the Democratic or Left persuasion are “Progressives” as we are so snidely referred to as by the Vast Right Wing Media [ha ha] then evidently, the Republicans and those of Right persuasion may be very accurately referred to as “Regressives.”?

A label is merely that – a label. Just because Obamacare is touted as ‘healthcare reform’ does not mean that it is reformed for the better. The Stimulus did little to stimulate the economy. The Fairness Doctrine unfairly shuts down talk radio which mainly features conservative commentators while leaving liberal-dominated TV untouched. Various ‘Democratic Republic of’ are iron-fisted dictatorships. The ‘Safe Schools’ Czar used to promote bar hopping and park swinging to underage teenagers. Global warming can cause cooling.

Progressive conjures up images of progression, but one can overshoot the mark and overdo something – not everything humans have done for the past 2000 years is necessarily bad, why fix what ain’t broke?

I have no problem with incest couples having the right to Marry each other. I am a Gay Atheist so I know what it’s like to feel discrimination and I have learned a LOT of valid information about rights based upon those experiences of discrimination. Honestly, if it doesn’t effect me, and if it doesn’t hurt anyone then why not? They should have the same rights as everyone else.

Another article with an agenda. Moving backwards from the conclusion that atheists condone incest.

Incest is not a traditional or religious taboo, but a human being taboo. Like a rotting animal smells bad, you move away from it. Why, because it is diseased. It would be lethal to eat. Human preservation.

You quote percentages, but incest does cause a higher percentage of physical problems to newborns. In animals, wolves in the Northwest travel between packs, some thousands of miles, to keep the gene pool from becoming incestuous. Seems Mother Nature understands inbreeding is a problem.

Any right thinking person can see that.

If you knew my family…Holy Christ…Believe me the last thing I want to do is…

Come on, if Adam & Eve started all this, there must have been some incest somewhere.

Look, if there is a God, in his ultimate wisdom, and omnipotence, he/she would have come up with something better than this. A ‘God’ with the vengeance to create hurricanes, and the psychosis to allow the holocaust, is not the kind of guy I want to spend eternity with. He doesn’t sound all that friendly, you know.

Right and wrong are all just matters of opinion. Saying something is wrong doesn’t actually MAKE it wrong. I don’t really care what people do. If they like it, that’s good for them. That doesn’t make it wrong.

Hi Scott.
I reviewed your other posts. Seems the common theme that runs through all of them is not a mutually intriguing discourse to explore how or why “the other half lives” and now I feel somewhat embarrassed for capitulating my harshness in argument. Let’s take off the gloves as it seems that is, in essence, what you wish to do.
It is a common and predictable malaise of the right to “do as I say, not as I do” regarding, well, everything. Now that I look back I see that Ron and I were getting the best of you and your pappy and Nasaei.
It is also a common problem among those on the left to trust people first. Won’t happen again. You’re and your pappy are intellectual charlatans not worth the time to waste reading.

Let’s take the gloves off? Didn’t take long for you to revert to your crusty dishonest self, did it? A thin veneer of pretence at humility doesn’t last long; hubris will out.

Poor Robert, so disappointed. Thinks he has won, when there are no victors, just participants in a series of discussions..must you win, must you prove yourself superior, must believe yourself intellectually superior, must youatheist (rubbish) everything? Sorry, Robert, that we’re no match for your sky high intellect.

I can rely on you Simon to quickly return to your normal, nasty self at a moments notice. What you see and what I see are two different things. I prefer to be obnoxious with obnoxious people like yourself. It is the only language that you hate to understand because it always reveals your true, hypocritical nature.

And it is true also that you are no match for my cosmic intellect. Har har har.

Seriously, do you want a banana? Don’t you know you just admitted that you are a monkey? But of course, you are descended from the apes! Old chinese saying: one finger pointing at others, thumb and 3 fingers at yourself. Ok, man (I) feed monkey (you) :)

Right and wrong are all just matters of opinion. Saying something is wrong doesn’t actually MAKE it wrong. I don’t really care what people do. If they like it, that’s good for them. That doesn’t make it wrong. – Katie

Hi Scott.
I reviewed your other posts. Seems the common theme that runs through all of them is not a mutually intriguing discourse to explore how or why “the other half lives” and now I feel somewhat embarrassed for capitulating my harshness in argument. Let’s take off the gloves as it seems that is, in essence, what you wish to do. – Robert

Well Robert, I admit it is true that most of my posts are of a combative, mocking or snarky nature.

Yet at times, I actually do concede a point and learn something new that changes my perception – and I admit as much publicly, to the person who convinced me and everyone who is reading.

I apologized to transsexual Yuki for my character attacks on a gay pastor and his partner.

I admitted my idea that only religion can have absolute morality was flawed – both religious and humanist morality are based on absolute ideals that are subjected to (fallible) human interpretation which makes it relativistic on the practical level.

I admitted that the DNA link between dinosaurs and modern birds was enough to make me reconsider the evidence for evolution (as transitional fossils are too ‘circumstantial’ by my reckoning).

And I will admit, I enjoy the verbal sparring as well as the apologetics practise that keeps me on my toes vis-a-vis the Bible.

Be honest now – would you bother with my blog if I were less provocative?

intellectual charlatans not worth the time to waste reading.

And yet, you come back again and again. I assume it must be for the decor.

I can rely on you Simon to quickly return to your normal, nasty self at a moments notice.

Wait… When was the last time I even responded to one of your comments?

Racist? I prefer “Equal Opportunity Offender” since we are all of one race – Human – it is our ethnic cultures built over time after leaving Africa, and yes, your roots as well as mine are black – so that makes President Obama your brother in the flesh – that distinguishes where our early ancestry had settled.

If the first man came from africa, black skin color is assumed; may not necessarily be black…could just as well be yellow, as in yellow banana skin when fruit is ripe. Yea, grind your organ; it’s good to see a monkey grind his own organ. But you get green bananas, for not being up to the grade.

yo, wassup?
lol, I’m a 16 year old Catholic girl, who just believes in common sense. As weird as it seems, the reason I follow Catholicism is because it has the most common sense, but that’s my opinion. (And I have to stay Catholic until I move out, but that’s another story.)
Honestly, I think that love is love, so if a person can love their mother or father or sibling in a way that makes them want to be intimate, I say let them. It’s not hurting anyone, and they have the right to have that love and commitment, or even just plain sex (if that’s what it is).
I actually came across this thread by way of looking up legends on twins who’ve committed incest, and the philosophies and myths of them. I’m very interested in this subject, but can’t find anything other than pregnancy myths about them, lol. I have heard one tale that, in the first life, if two people (soulmates) find each other, but go through great difficulties and in the end, die because of their love, fate has them born as twins so they do not have to look for each other in the next life. Another by a Greek philosopher (which I know little about, and would like to know more of if someone would be so kind to direct me), that soulmates are made in pairs, male-female, male-male, or female-female. Twins who come to love each other in an incestuous way have already connected to their soulmate.
If anyone can direct me to any other philosophers and such, please do.
Even if I’m 16, I have the mind of an old woman, and I soak up philosophy, psychology, and sociology like a sponge.
In the same way that incest is not wrong, please don’t tell me that my age limits me because it’s inappropriate, or that could start a whole other arguement, yes? lol
Thank you!

I’m not sure how deeply you are into Catholicism, but to me it seems to be just a surface/nominal/non-serious thing for you. Here’s why:

1) Incest is forbidden by Catholicism, especially between the closest related members of a family.

2) Catholicism does no believe in reincarnation or next lives, but rather in resurrection – once you die, you are judged and go either to heaven, hell or purgatory. But you may want to look up the tale of the Butterfly Lovers, a classic Chinese ‘never can be with their loved one in life but manage to in death’ story. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_Lovers

3) Catholicism does not believe in ‘fate’ as a mindless automatatic force, but rather God’s will and control over all things.

Noted that for 2 and 3, you didn’t actually say you believe in those things, but I’m assuming.

I’m totally of the opinion that you can believe anything you want, but it just seems to me that a lot of what you believe goes directly against standard Catholic beliefs. Just saying.

Consider the case of someone who self-identifies as a Christian but also believes that:

1) Jesus was not actually the Son of God – the concept of ‘Son of God’ is a metaphor, not an actuality
2) There didn’t actually die for our sins – His death is just an emotionally-moving metaphor that embodies the concept of self-sacrifice as a pathway to moral salvation

What would your opinion of such a person be?

I’m curious to get your views. This isn’t an entirely hypothetical question, because I know a number of people who hold these exact views.

1) Well, how metaphoric are we talking? If it’s that Jesus is not the genetic son of God, I believe that is a standard Christian belief. By human understanding, Jesus’ relation with the Father is closest to that of a son, thus the chosen descriptor. But there’s only so far physical-world comparisons can go for pre-existing, spiritual entities. See post for related:

2) That Jesus died on the cross is taken as bald fact by the early Christians, to the point that Paul famously said we are to be pitied more than all men if inj fact Jesus was not resurrected (which by definition, cannot happen unless He first died).

So to be strict, both views are non-mainstream and non-Biblical. However, let’s extend the discussion to whether they are still saved by Christian standards. This is much harder for me to answer – watch out for an upcoming post on this topic.

To give a little context, I’m thinking of a mate of mine that identifies as a Catholic. He’s challenged me on my atheism a few times over beers – nothing too adversarial, just indulging in a bit of over-educated navel-gazing over alcohol. Good times. ^_^

Anyway, I’ve mentioned a few things to explain why I call myself an atheist.

To start out, I said that I accepted that an historic figure such as Jesus being crucified was well within the realms of historic plausibility, so I’m happy to accept that there is some historic truth behind the narrative in the Gospels. Maybe there wasn’t any such figure, but I see no significant reason to doubt it.

1)

With that in mind I told him that I don’t accept that Jesus was the Son of God in the sense that I think he was a biological human being like any other. So not only do I reject the claim that Mary was a virgin, I also reject that Jesus was in any qualitative sense different to any other human being. He wasn’t the embodiment of anything that made him any different to the rest of us.

My friend – let’s call him Mike – pointed out that he didn’t think so either. He considered the term ‘Son of God’ to basically just mean that Jesus was the only person in history to actually live out a truly moral life as described in Mike’s interpretation of Christian morality. In the sense that ‘Even the pope commits seven sins a day’, Mike considers that Jesus did not. And that’s all my friend considers the term ‘Son of God’ to mean. He specifically referred to th the term ‘Son of God’ as metaphor for a sinless existence. He simply considered that Jesus was the only person to ever pull this off.

2)

As for the salvation thing – we both accepted that the crucifixion of Jesus probably happened, so no qualms there.

I told him that despite this, I didn’t consider that a crucifixion would have resulted in any kind of actual salvation. I don’t accept Original Sin, so I don’t think humanity was in a state that needed saving in the first place. And even if I did, I don’t see how a brutal murder at the hands of humanity suddenly opens the door to making humanity all better… That seems backwards to me. I reject the notion of redemption via substitution, and I reject the notion that Jesus’ crucifixion – any crucifixion – changed anything for us beyond adding another unfortunate and unnecessary death to the overall body-count of human history.

Mike responded, to my shock, that he agreed with me on this as well. He said that he considered the crucifixion of Jesus to be a metaphor for salvation for personal redemption through human sacrifice. To Mike, the story of the stations of the cross is an inspirational ideal that he thinks people should strive to live up to, that we should use it as an example so we can learn to sacrifice their own well-being in favor of others.

At this point, I complained that I had been under the impression that I was arguing with a Christian and not a closeted atheist, at which point we laughed and the topic moved on to something else… From memory, Mike moved on to Dawkins bashing, which was more fun for everyone involved. ^_^

The experience just left me a bit curious to what other Christians/Catholics might think of this kind of stance regarding the Christian religion… I always thought there were three things that a person has to actually believe are true in order to meaningfully call themselves a Christian:

1) That Jesus was the Son of God – the actual embodiment of God in human form (Mike doesn’t think this)
2) That Jesus’ death on the cross was the salvation of humanity because it allowed us a mechanism for wiping ourselves clean of sin, Original or otherwise (Mike doesn’t think this)
3) That Jesus physically died and then rose form the dead three days later.

Mike and I never got around to discussing point 3… But I can imagine what he may have said.

3)

So what if Jesus didn’t actually die? It doesn’t matter. It’s the story that matters, because it gives us hope and something to aspire too. You’ve missed the point again Dan. And if he did die, but didn’t rise from the dead – let’s say that the post-resurrection ‘Jesus’ was someone else that inflicted crucifixion wounds onto himself. Even here, it doesn’t matter. The teachings and example of Jesus lived on in his replacement. The parts of Jesus that really mattered – his teachings and his morality – did survive his death. That’s all that the story has to mean. Jesus’ resurrection was just a metaphor, in exactly this sense.

I’m putting words in his mouth, there. But I find it plausible, based on my knowledge of the guy.

Anyway, this is all getting a bit long-winded. Really, I’m just interested in how other Christians would interpret Mike’s views… He seemed to me to be an atheist that sympathized with the philosophy and morality of Christianity but who didn’t actually believe the supernatural bits. A believer in belief perhaps, but not an actual believer.

I can relate to that, because I feel much the same way about Buddhism. But I don’t call myself a Buddhist, because I feel that would be a dishonest self-representation.

I’m inclined to think the same about Mike – but then, I’m an atheist. I have an axe to grind in this arena, so I can’t deny that I might be overly biased. Which is where you come in. As a believer yourself, I’m curious as to your interpretation of ‘Mike’ and his stance towards Christian doctrines.

You can take or leave point 3) as you like… I was really just putting words into Mike’s mouth. I have no idea how he actually feels on the subject – it’s never come up.

1) Well from a doctrinal standpoint, the willing self-sacrifice of a totally sinless person would be adequate to cleanse someone of their sins entirely – would it be enough to cleanse everyone for all eternity if the sacrificed were merely a mortal and finite human, instead of God? (See Hebrews 9:11-28, Hebrews 10:1-25).

2) If you ask me personally, probably God could have achieved salvation through any number of other means – say, Jesus’ death by stoning (in which case several Messianic prophecies probably would have been inspired to the prophets in different wording), or not involving death at all.

Why did God choose sacrifice of life instead of some other means, being omnipotent and omniscient and all-wise as He is? Rationalizing on ‘punishment of sin is death’ and ‘life for ;ife’ aside, I can only answer that I don’t know why for sure (why did God make the sky made blue and not green?), but that if God really is all-wise, He knows what method is the best.

Others disagree, of course. Commentor Wido for example stressed his/her disgust with everything about sacrifice theology in many, many comments.

You’re basically spot on with the general Christian beliefs. Most denominations would add ‘salvation through faith in Jesus alone’ as their statement of faith.

3) If that is the actual philosophy of anyone, I’d say… If there really is no such thing as the metaphysical, there is no significance to Jesus sacrificial death.

So yeah, I agree that Jesus’ life makes for a great example for anyone of any philosophical system to follow – if you leave out all the stuff about the afterlife and very Jewish-ey, old-fashioned rules for living He espouses.

I believe it was C.S. Lewis who said (paraphrased) that we really can’t accept Jesus’ teachings about being nice to one another while ignoring His claims to deity.

Finally, let me say that I hold a lot of personal opinions that actually run contradictory to standard Christian beliefs, doctrines and norms – for example, I do not see what is humanistically bad about consenting adult homosexuality, I feel prostitution as a legalized and well monitored business would solve a lot of problems (you can make clients prove they aren’t married as well), that it does seem somewhat unfair that very good people who have never accepted Jesus or even heard the gospel won’t be saved) – but I simultaneously defer to the Bible on these matters, as:

A) How much wisdom is there really in my finite decades of limited experience, compared to the thousands of years of cumulative experiences recorded in the Bible and God’s infinite knowledge?

B) If I am to reject parts of the Bible that I disagree with, on what basis do I do so? (Cafeteria Christianity) Why be a Christian at all if I doubt the source and basis of Christianity? After all, to paraphrase Jesus in John 3:12, if I can’t believe the Bible on physical things, why believe it on metaphysical things?

you’re right Scott, I really only believe that there isn’t any reincarnation out of those points. Even with God having “power of everything.” I believe that he has power over things we don’t have control over: sickness and natural disaster is all really. That’s all I really pray about, or for souls in purgatory. I think that you’ve actually got to work at getting what you want, and not relying completely on prayer.
However, I was just asking about philosophies and such, nothing more or less.

I believe that although there is no actual Bible verse along the lines of ‘God helps those who help themselves’, and we are told several times that our personal salvation is purely by faith in Jesus Christ, Jesus tells us that if we do not help the needy, we’ll be called to account for it (Matthew 25:31-46).

I don’t believe in purgatory, as the concept is not mentioned in the Bible. By contrast, several passages seem to indicate that judgment (and receiving either heaven or hell) comes immediately after death:

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise. – Luke 23:42-43 (entry into heaven immediately after death)

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. – Hebrews 9:27-28 (judgment before God’s throne after death; also all sins are removed by Christ’s sacrifice alone)

The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side…. He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ – The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (entry into heaven or hell while siblings are still alive on earth)

Good Roman Catholics don’t make very good thinkers as far as doctrine and theology are concerned. They are too dependent on priests, nuns and church traditions (not to mention superstitions). There are too many secondhand believers, recipients of the faith of their fathers and grandfathers and greatgrandfathers….. Not allowed to read the Bible for too long, now that they are, they are not encouraged to. I went to school for 11 years at a RC mission school, and when it was known that I read the Bible, the cries of shock and horror were loud!

But Simon, only Roman Catholics go to heaven. So I was taught in First and subsequent grades. And they also go way out of their way to trace their roots to Simon Peter when, in fact, the Roman Catholic church didn’t form until 500 years after the death of Jesus. That’s why I like to jest with RC’s and say the Roman Empire never really fell, they just changed their name. Keep the slaves alive and rule them with guilt and fear and promise everlasting peace or eternal damnation and they will give you their clothes, food and money…but keep the swords handy.

Some time ago, an acquaintance went to an RC priest for help. Priest said, “Jesus Christ is dead, resurrected and ascended to heaven; and we are all alone…sorry, can’t help you. We’ve got good teaching but no spiritual power.” Priest knows nothing about the presence of the Holy Spirit. Why is he a priest? Second son in an RC family. They go into the church whether there is a calling or not. Sometimes it’s the eldest son. Much like Church of England in the past.,, taking in sons of longtime RC families. Or, Church of England following RC. There is one difference in the RC, that part that is charismatic.

wow what long….long debate (2 years huh).Congratz thong (hey…remind me of Sisqo).Hey i think i know the conclusion is…..Incest is wrong, So with Homo,zoophilia,pedophilia,necrophilia & etc.But one thing for sure,human would still do it because of their emotional factor.Its just part of our primeval instinct that derived from our cortex which somehow evolved from reptile.But human is special because they have advance brain, more complex than the other animal.So human are much more rational & know what is good & wrong.But somehow knowing good & wrong would take a long time.Well learning process is not only done at individual level but also at the society level which later accumulated & compiled.In animal kingdom several species show some degrees of homosexuality & the some people justify the act of homosexuality is not wrong because animal also do it.If it so, is it morally wrong for us to kill & eat the other animal.What about killing human and eat other human.Why…human is also animal?But in our instinct, its wrong to kill other human but still we do it.So what about plant, do they show degree of homosexuality @ perhaps “biologically homosexual activity” maybe on cellular scale or population scale.Well everything in this world exist in pair.Positive negative.Cathode anode.Present absent.0 & 1 (Binary).male & female.north & south(recently scientist try to find monopole magnetism properties of particle…thats mean no pairing but no can do).So back to the animal & plant issue.Animal have brain but not plant..But both animal & plant kingdom can perform asexual reproduction.So brain leads to perversion of law nature while no brainers leads to law nature.WOW this is interesting.But hey one thing that i was curious, is there any atheist that are against the perversion of law nature @ actually thinks that perversion can cause more harm in term of physical or mentally.So i think moderation is the best.Hey just reminding y’all to control your food intake…..very high or very low intake can lead to health problem.To control the urge sometimes discipline is needed.no discipline no manner.CHEERS.

You are confusing athiest, liberals, etc. With rational thinkers. An overgeneralization plus deep religious influences (yes subliminal messages do affect people) has lead to a thought spread about by religious folks that incest is wrong. Now the religion messages are not voluntary, people are being exposed to and judged by a belief that was used to make people unquestionallg believe. The other part of the spectrum that you are missing are the rationalists. They say that if you really want to, and it’s consentual it is fine. You are compairing two different ideas, and linking them. Next time be sure to avoid that.

What makes you think that Rationalists are different from others, 3sa? Don’t they have emotions, including lust? It seems to me that rationalists MAY BE different in that they are MORE capable of RATIONALIZING what they do. They lust, and rationalize it as “if it’s consensual it is fine”.

Roman Catholic church didn’t form until 500 years after the death of Jesus.

– Robert

It is interesting to know such a fact.. Some people say, during the first and second century after Jesus death, nobody believe in trinity. Then after Nicaea Council meeting in 323CE, Arius was “blasted” when he raised the issue of Jesus’ so-called divine before the Council. King Constantine then proclaimed Jesus’ divinity and “trinity”. That was what history and people said.

I wonder, who is Constatine to decide ? He had the power to determine who is the “god” or not? Mightbe Constantine was the real “god” ?

Now you’re getting it, Nasaei. Few people realize that the books of the New Testament found in today’s Bible were selected almost entirely by fiat during the early centuries of Christianity. There were many other texts (and competing ideologies) available to choose from, but the early church fathers deemed them “heretical” and went to great pains to have them destroyed. Even the texts which ‘made the cut’ were heavily edited. There is compelling evidence that the authors of the first three gospels fabricated the majority of their narrative to incorporate the oral folklore about Jesus floating around during their lives.

Pls forgive me Simon. It is NOT my intention to ‘belittle’ or argue for the sake for arguing. We need to see things, facts, or history objectively. (I admit, I did badly in History papers when I was in school, I like Geolofy and Geography better).

So..please anyone come up with the TRUE facts in order for us to counter check in this open discussion.

I hope Ron and Robert (or anybody else) will not simply “attack” for thje sake of “attack”, but for the sake of truth. Make it less “sarcastic” if possible.

“There is compelling evidence that the authors of the first three gospel fabricated the majority of the narrative to incorporate the oral folklore about Jesus floating around during their lives.” – Ron

Did the three gospel writers sit together and fabricate the majority of the narrative? That would require them to meet together and over a long period of time. Is there evidence that they did so? A poor attempt at fabrication, Ron.

Yes, there was the oral ttradition and the fact that the gospels of mark, matthew and luke have so much in common is a testimony to how true they are to the oral tradition.

1. Before the Nicean Council, there was already a general acceptance of which gospels and letters were considered genuine. Thus the Council served as more of an official ratification of what was already accepted rather than an executive veto. As a comparison, take the appearance of new words that didn’t exist a few years ago (such as ‘unilateral’ and ‘spam’) – everyone knows what they mean and how they are used, but when a recognized dictionary includes them as entries, they become ‘official’.

2. On whether the Gospels were fabricated, that is probably the only thing that skeptics and critics of the NT can agree on. Past that point, you’d be hard pressed to find agreement on which parts are fake between, say, Higher Criticism, Historical Jesus, and Muslim scholarship. Says something about the so-called ‘expertise’ of these experts.

3. On the beginnings of the Trinity doctrine, even within the NT itself there are numerous instances of the concept appearing – chiefly the treatment of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as divine and the invocation of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together.

4. On Arius, his belief was considered heretical because it considered Jesus as a created being, rather than being uncreated since before time began (as John 1:1 states). Again, if the Nicean Council did anything regarding this matter, it was to publicly state what the official belief was.

I went to this site thinking its about how wrong incest is but its mostly biut beastiality! since we are on that topic I have to say. even if I wasn’t religious is very discusting that some of you think its ok. you think its pleasure but you will never know cuz they can’t tell to stop so that is abuse!

I think incestual sex and relationships are fine, just not them having children [I’ll specify on this wait]

I have an intolerence of a father who has children with his daughter, or a mother with her son. I just have. I can accept cousin incest, or unknown sibling/cousin incest, and heck, I’m fine with sibling incest, but not parent-child. To me, thats just sick, the adult is a bloody cradle snatcher and the child [we presume adult, seeing as this is the case at hand]…wtf? there are milliions of people you could f*ck and get pregnant from, and you choose someone old enough to be your parent who IS your parent? seeing what I just wrote, I’ll have to add, the older of the incestual pair is like 12 years older than the other AS A MINIMUM…wtf? seriously. Nasty stuff mate.

I actually just think the age difference is wrong. Incest is just a really ‘adding’ matter. I can go as far as to accept a 10 year difference between a pairing [who decide to have biological children], but thats just about as far as I can go in terms of respecting them.

They all decided that the One Ring must be destroyed in the fires of Orodruin at the Council of Elrond…really…..

Scott! You still have sheep on your mind?

Was he like this as a little boy, Simon? Chasing frightened monkeys around with a burning lust in his eyes? Why is young Scotty so utterly fixated with incest and having sex with animals? Seeking some sort of justification?

Robert, eat more lopak. Will do you some good. Ad hominems, eh? Can’t separate a theoretical discussion from an experiential revelation? Poor Robert, brains got curdled at childhood? A disgrace to atheists who pride themselves on reason.

Whenever Robert is caught out, especially for not using his brain, he returns to his escape clause, “I can always count on you to amuse me。” Isn’t the truth obvious to you, Robert? You;re trying to smile through your tears of anger and bitterness. No child, Robert, so you must run us down? Poor Robert…你要吃萝卜帮你解毒

Never seen “Caddyshack”? Just like to drop in with all of you serious dead heads arguing with strained vexation and pseudo intellectual banality over outdated hokum to stroke your own egos, but I digress. Please Simon, continue to bestow your self absorbed wisdom about people you’ve never met and know everything about.

In the near future who knows…pedophilia is legal as long as it consensual to children.Then, there’s a bunch of children & pedobear run down the town & yelled, “we want our rights as a human being & should not be bound by age.we deserved it!!”.
Who Knows!!even the children get smarter via tech advance & etc.
ekekekekekeke

Congratulations.
You have managed to waste 5 hours of my time reading this article and all of the 260 succeeding comments. I have to admit that I was much intrigued by the vast number of responses to what I believed is a rather socially sensitive topic.
Imagine my disappointment when, searching for diverse viewpoints, I discovered that it was mainly a few individuals arguing back and forth.
I cannot withhold my great curiousity, so please, kindly answer this question for me.

What is it that prompted you to spent about two years debating on this one little topic?

Lol, well I can speak for myself – I enjoy debating and snarking with commentors, so every time a new one stumbles onto this post for the first time, or an old one returns with something new to say, I usually can’t help but to respond. Even if I long ago lost interest in the specific topic, or sometimes even though I have subsequently changed my mind on it!

americans using logic are really funny and never coming to a conclusion of what is right and what is wrong.they the people forget that the standards for this and for that is set by society itself.different society in different times will give us different values for this and for that.in america of 2010 is a protestant capitalist system with values of religion and private property as its foundation and all the discussions its own people have or will have is coming from these 2 sources.protestant capitalism does not abolish religion because it is useful to it for specific reasons of keeping the people diverted from the real issues of economy and power wealth privileges as far as possible, and religion is doing this diversion that helps protestant capitalism get along and live as long as diversions from real life issues succeeds.the origin and power of religion is related to material conditions under male private property of might is right which compels women to submit and be enslaved to male private property power system.the fightback of the women is the religion of man to appease the suffering of women under male private property system with a creation of afterlife another world delusion.the religion of man is the expression of the suffering and pain of women under male private property might is right system of life.the abolition of male wars and male private property system dissolves the need for god delusion belief and begins the life on earth where might is right has been eliminated once and for all as a way of life.

romboko moboko, this is a whole lot of stuff that says nothing…delusions, delusions, delusions..the kind of stuff that half-baked philosophizing undergrads used to spout in the 80s. I’m amzed to still read such junk.

Hi everybody.. Frankly I have NO intention to belittle, to mock, or to disrespect. My ‘motive’ is …only to find truth. And in our efforts to seek truth, we should to look at things from different perspective, from the other side of the coin… as well.

The problem with us: “We thought what people believe is wrong; what I believe is absolutely right, correct, true..” With such a kind of attitude, an open forum or discussion, cannot improve..at all.

…Because we are “dead sets” in what we got from our parents. We inherited the believe.

“Many times I heard previously, that..early Christian did not believe in trinity.”

The problem Muslims have with Fr Botros is that they simply cannot refute him: everything he says — no matter how scandalizing to Islam — is always based on, often revered, Islamic sources. Moreover, Fr Botros rarely makes any claims about Islam: he only exposes; he only raises questions and then invites Islam’s ulema to respond and “clarify” the matter. However, as this story indicates, their response is only to have him censored — or, for the more radical, killed.

As he always says, however, “This stuff is in your own books! If you don’t like it, go burn your books — you know, the way Caliph Uthman burned all the other contending Korans [there were 7] when he prepared the authoritative version, the one you believe is based on a ‘heavenly’ Koran!”

Amani Mostafa, who hosts the program “Questions About Faith” on which Boutros spoke Thursday, said Boutros was “reading from an Islamic text” when he said, over the air, that the Prophet Muhammad slept in the grave of a dead woman and allowed a man to kiss and caress his chest.

“I am a former Muslim,” said Mostafa, who is now Christian. “I know exactly what I am talking about. These are the things we were taught as children. We are quoting the Quran and the Hadiths, and if the Muslims have a problem with that then they have a problem with their own book.”

I don’t understand how religious believers can beat their heads against the bible [and verbally attempt to do the same to anyone within earshot], a collection of writings of many men, selectively chosen to fit an ‘ideal’ god model, who ignored many other manuscripts written at the same time but abandoned them because they didn’t fit a ‘divine plan.’ (Kind of like what you see the Tea Baggers and nutty conservatives do with Our Constitution and the Old Testament]; basically generations of archaics who had no idea whatsoever of the Universe, the Planet and everything that surrounded them in regards to how it actually worked. None of the scientific disciplines. And people today will cling steadfastly to every word beginning with ‘Creation.’
You would think they would stop a moment to realize that all of the scientific discoveries, theories and laws, including evolution which actually occurs on a cosmic scale, is a part of that ‘Creation.’ Rather than standing in awe of the mightiest intellect conceived, and learning all they can about how their ‘Creator’ did it all, they defy, denounce, ridicule and attempt to come up with every lame excuse to discredit, disprove and reject their own god’s creation.
Personally, I don’t believe in ‘creation.’ “Well it had to start somewhere!” and I ask, “Why?” Odd how they grasp the concept of ‘eternal glory’ or ‘eternal torment’ but reject the concept of an eternal Universe.

You would think they would stop a moment to realize that all of the scientific discoveries, theories and laws, including evolution which actually occurs on a cosmic scale, is a part of that ‘Creation.’ Rather than standing in awe of the mightiest intellect conceived, and learning all they can about how their ‘Creator’ did it all, they defy, denounce, ridicule and attempt to come up with every lame excuse to discredit, disprove and reject their own god’s creation.

– Robert says.

Theists also believe in evolution. But we believe evolution is God’s works.
He is the one behind it. He created it, designed it. I don’t think evolution made evolution.

Personally to me, I agree with many scientists that at one point..I mean long, long time ago nothing exists. Let us say for example 100 trillion years ago. So..at that particular time, in order for evolution to “spark off”, ther should be a certain force behind it (if we rule out God). But then, we said the was nothing there. I mean the “force” was NOT there also. It cannot be…suddenly evolution happened without cause and effect, without reason.. I guess, even air cannot move withouit certain reason behind it, right?

So, you atheists (and us theists as well) have so many unanswered questions. Don’t jump to delusioned conclusions if you do NOT have answers to those outstanding questions. Hundreds of questions perhaps-remained unanswered by scientists.

Secondly, if it (evolution) true, it must have been repeated..or happened again anywhere in the universe. For example some of you said man were from monkey. Does that proven or ever happened again? Why ?

Last time I said, there are exibits in Chicago Nature Museum. Omong the many, one is primitive fish bone, and palm leave. Bot were found in a croos-cut solid rock. They are said to be 70 million years old.

You know, they look exactly the same of today’s fish bone/ palm leaf. No different whatsover !

So where is evolution/delusion?

In 70 millions yrs..no different, no change ! We may then say: ” Uh..evolution only happened in 71 million yrs, not 70 million ! Ha..ha…

I agree. There was evolution. Early earth surface might have been very different. Temperature too might be. But “man from monkey”, “evolution made evolution”; or “universe came into being” because of nothing”, “by chance” etc. etc is a lie exactly. No one has the full knowledge of it.

Unless..if it like this (somehow):

1. At that very early time of the universe – nothing exist. Nothing.
2. Then a particular later time: It was there like miracle – came into
being. God made it available..in partial, of part of it.

Darwin never said we came from monkeys or apes. In an effort to describe early humans, Darwin referred to their appearance as ‘ape-like creature.’ And the clergy ran with that, like Fox News, and blew it all out of proportion. You have your own to thank for that.

Brite, I think the story about Caliph Othman odered burning of Quran parts
was originally from Muslims resources. I mean, we Muslims well acknowledge of that event. Almost every adult Muslim knows that.

So, tired of you (may be) to use that issue, as if we Muslims did not aware of it.

The different is that, you see it as something, we (muslims) feel it was done in good faith in effort to compile Quran.

Might be you have something in mind; we don’t. Othman, like many of the Prophet’ (pbuh) colleagues, was a God fearing, very God- fearing , righteous man.

`Othman, like many of the Prophet’ (pbuh) colleagues, was a God fearing, very God- fearing , righteous man.`

The worst kinds are the “god-fearing” ones. After burning books they do not agree with, they start burning people.
Which explains why book-burner (“Säuberung”) Hitler`s Mein Kampf is best seller in muslim countries. The blood-lust was implanted a long time ago.

Now the pakistanis are paying for their blood lust. The Iranians are not left out either:

Iran has been hit with its third earthquake in six weeks, a major issue for a country with nuclear facilities in earthquake zones.
Earthquake-prone Iran suffered a 5.7-quake on July 30. Some 300 people in northeastern Iran were injured at the time. Ten days earlier, a 5.8-earthquake hit the south of the country, killing at least one and injuring 32. Hundreds of homes were damaged in both.

Personally, I don’t believe in ‘creation.’ “Well it had to start somewhere!” and I ask, “Why?” Odd how they grasp the concept of ‘eternal glory’ or ‘eternal torment’ but reject the concept of an eternal Universe. – Robert

That’s because your phrasing excludes the context.

The eternal glory or eternal torment will last forever, however each had a distinct beginning – i.e. upon our deaths. The same goes for creation – before Genesis 1 there was no universe to speak of. These are ‘eternal’ with a beginning but no end.

Whereas the ‘eternal Universe’ concept going by secular physics (e.g. steady state universe) is ‘eternal’ with no beginning either.

Ask any layperson whether he thinks a large diamond – newly coughed up by the Earth in the past eon – can exist for the next thousand or million years. No problemo right? Maybe even still retain its diamondness an eternity later. Still little problemo.

But now ask them to imagine that the diamond has always existed since forever. There is a huge difference between something already existing lasting for eternity, and something always having existed since infinity in the past.

Scott. Diamonds are crystallized carbon formed during intense heat and pressure of the Earth and found in and around volcanic plugs. Your creation story doesn’t even qualify as hypothesis, let alone theory. Try reality, it works.

Now, see here Mr. Thong, we’ve had a hit in the internet’s septic tank. And, boy, I think you can see what that’s gone and done. Newage, all over the place. Mountains and mountains of raw newage.

Sure does stink the place up a bit, doesn’t it? Easy to forget what it’s like, in my line of work.

Sure, we can plug the leak. Could take a while though, couple of weeks maybe. Overheads and costs, well, we don’t even know how much of the plumbing needs to be replaced, yet… If we factor in all the risks to a fixed quote, that’s gonna go large. Much better work like this is done on time and materials.

Creational legends are a global phenomenon. Records of the belief systems of ancient astronauts coming to Earth can be found on Rock Art — Ancient Sumerian clay tablets and cylinder seals, and in the Bible.

If we’re allowed to fornicate with another person of the same gender, then what’s stopping us from fornicating with meerkats or Californian Condors? (Maybe the liberals would make an appeal to the Endangered Species Act for the latter, but that’s about the only reason they’d be against man-on-condor sex, and it’s debatable whether the Environmentalist or the sexual deviant in them would dominate.) Neither produces children, both are unhealthy, and both are prohibited by the Bible; fornication is for procreation, not recreation.

The next thing you know, they’ll try to advocate fornicating with sub-atomic particles. In their ignorance of Scripture, they will claim that there is no direct prohibition on doing that. Well, there’s also no direct prohibition on joining the Crips, but does anyone seriously think that would be morally okay?

I don’t understand how religious believers can beat their heads against the bible [and verbally attempt to do the same to anyone within earshot], a collection of writings of many men, selectively chosen to fit an ‘ideal’ god model, who ignored many other manuscripts written at the same time but abandoned them because they didn’t fit a ‘divine plan.’ … Robert.

We don’t understand also how atheists believe in theories – just rely on theories.. since many of them cannot be/ never be proven.

@Scott
Wow, I actually forgot this existed for a while. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, since you replied to me several months ago. (I didn’t check the ‘notify me of follow-up comments’ box – silly me.)

Anyway, as I said before, right and wrong are just matters of opinion on everything. Yes, most of the world sees murder as wrong, but what does the murderer see? It’s all a matter of perspective.

“We don’t understand also how atheists believe in theories – just rely on theories.. since many of them cannot be/ never be proven.” – nasi

“The more ignorant men are, the more convinced are they that their little parish and their little chapel is an apex which civilization and philosophy have painfully struggled up the pyramid of time” – Shaw

That’s basically moral relativism. Doesn’t work so well in real life though – if I don’t think killing you is wrong, does that make it right? What if ten people voted that me killing you is right and only three people voted that it is wrong? What if everybody else apart from us agreed that it is right?

What I mean when I say this is that, throughout the ages, people have held various beliefs of what is right and wrong. From what I have understood (and feel free to correct me on this), these values are the result of the current period and environment the society existed in. Ultimately, the values are the result of evolutionary advantage of one morality meme over another. One of my favorite examples to explain this is Slavery.

um this may be dumb, but if god doesn’t condon incest then how can any of adam and eves early desandants go to heaven. i mean i they were the only people in the earth then their children would have to have had sex. unless i’ve completely missed the parts where adam and eve discover other people on the earth

1) Incest wasn’t wrong at the beginning – after all, it’s only specifically forbidden in Leviticus onwards. Perhaps the effects of sin had not fully manifested yet, thus there were no horrible inbreeding mutations. By the time of Moses, sin’s deleterious effects were serious enough that a ban on close kin marriage had to be enacted.

2) The Bible doesn’t mention any other humans apart from Adam and Eve at the start, but this doesn’t mean that God did not place any others on Earth. This is pure conjecture of course.

In any case, no one can go to heaven – including Adam, Eve, their descendants, Moses, the prophets – except through the cleansing forgiveness from Jesus. In that respect, incestuous couples are no different from the usual run of the mill liars, stealers and even murderers – so long as they repent and accept Jesus as the only way to be saved, then their sins are washed away and they will enter heaven.

“If we’re allowed to fornicate with another person of the same gender, then what’s stopping us from fornicating with meerkats or Californian Condors?”

People would argue that it is wrong because animals cannot consent. Then again, they cannot consent to being caged, castrated, leashed, killed, eaten, experimented on, having their homes bulldozed over, or anything else we do to them, so I think that reasoning is stupid.

Someone bending over and letting Spot go at them doesn’t hurt the animal. However, “bigots” will pretend it is animal abuse, and thus wrong, because they find it yucky.

Not that I advocate animal/human sex, but I think it is wrong for other reasons (mostly religious) other than animal abuse, unless the animal is physically harmed in the process.

People just don’t want to admit they are bigots. Anyone who is against consensual incest is a bigot, plain and simple. Unless they also want to outlaw people with poor/incompatible genes and women over 40 from having sex.

I, however, have no problem being a bigot when it comes to certain activities, such as bestiality and incest, even though they don’t harm me.

People would argue that it is wrong because animals cannot consent. Then again, they cannot consent to being caged, castrated, leashed, killed, eaten, experimented on, having their homes bulldozed over, or anything else we do to them, so I think that reasoning is stupid. – Tim

Great point on the incompatible genes and older women – yet another argument for why the irreligious are themselves hypocritical bigots for opposing incest, but not two 45 year old Thalassemia minor individuals procreating.

There’s nothing wrong with two consenting adults who want to have sex/relationship with each other who are related. I seriously don’t get why it’s illegal because it’s apparent that it’s actually quite popular to have a liking towards, if not immediate family, at least cousins. I myself am not attracted to anyone in my own family, so I am not one for incest myself but to those who like I said are consenting adults, it’s A OK with me. In fact come on over, I’ll lend you a room and hide you from the government! :P

As for comparing it to bestiality in the same breath, that’s a no-no. No animal can give full consent to sexual acts, so it’s animal abuse. Find me a talking animal that can understand the consequences of sex with humans and is able to say YES to the act (any given language, it could be Oui), and it’s fine with me. I admit I don’t want to watch…so if you could please keep your consenting animal that doesn’t exist to yourself its all good. However if you want to read things like manga with sex with animals, i see no harm since no animal is harmed. – That’s my reason for finding bestiality unappetizing, sorry.

I just read Tim’s post and I thought to myself, you have a point. I have quite a few animals as pets, however I myself am a vegan so I don’t eat or wear animals. I also have confirmed my animals do consent to being leeshed because when I hold it up they jump on me and practically slip their heads into it. However my rats cannot consent to being caged, it was a choice I made so I could keep them. Thus I’m a little bit stuck on how to come back at you on this one and I thought to myself. My cat sticks her butt up in the air all the time, but that doesn’t mean she wants something stuck inside her, in fact she’ll show it by if you rub her to close she’ll snap your hand off! Now I’m not saying I get to close, but it’s common knowledge if you scratch most cats fannys, most cats like it for a bit then get super pissed off. Maybe they want more, who knows. They can’t exactly say so. However what if the animal was put into a state of shock after being penetrated? Just like humans who have been raped. They may not struggle or refuse but that is not a confirmation as to whether or not they like it. I’m not trying to be a bigot, I’m just trying to help the animals without a voice. I keep my animals inside because of diseases and the SPCA who runs wild where I live and catches anything you accidently let outside. Also we got cars and lots of road kill, especially with squirrels. So it’s protecting the animal, protection and sex are two different things. Sure an animal doesn’t ask for protection, but its a little bit different than touching on their genitals. It’s just like, because a baby gets a boner doesn’t mean he wants you to jack him off! Which they do, I changed my nephews diapers, it’s kinda funny. You protect the ones who do not know any better and cannot give consent, you don’t abuse the fact your bigger, or f*cking horny as an excuse.

Find me a talking animal that can understand the consequences of sex with humans and is able to say YES to the act (any given language, it could be Oui), and it’s fine with me.

Methinks if they brought a gorilla who can do sign language and enjoys doing the dirty with humans, they would still argue against its capability for true sentient thought and rational decision making. (Even as other animal rights advocates argue for the sentience and self-awareness of animals far lower in the Darwin tree.)

“However what if the animal was put into a state of shock after being penetrated? Just like humans who have been raped.”

I was thinking more the animal would be the uhh…giver and the human the receiver. They wouldn’t be anymore “traumatized” than they would be by humping a leg or some other animal, which is not illegal to allow an animal to do.

Let me first say: I’m not particularly interested in arguing about whether your conclusion is right. It very well may be, however your method of arriving at said conclusion is most certainly invalid.

To sum up your argument in a nutshell:

“No one has sufficiently convinced me that morality arises from natural law, therefore it must originate with Yahweh.”

Which is just as fallacious as saying:

“No one has sufficiently convinced me that morality is absolute and granted by Yahweh, so it must originate from natural causes.”

Your post is potentially persuasive, but is logically unsound, as demonstrated. Even if one assumes that your conclusion is correct, one should still recognize that the path you’ve drawn to it is basically untenable.

If you are interested in learning the viewpoints of those who oppose your views, you might wish to check out the links at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality I suggest this, because I don’t encourage anyone to take wikipedia’s word for it, but some of the references are quite good.

Also, I recommend the works of Stephen Jay Gould, and other leading biologists and also popular works by Michael Shermer. These works are not comprehensive, but are a good starting point for understanding why people believe that behavior (and by extension morality) might arise from natural law.

Best of luck finding the answers you’re looking for, or convincing those you wish to convince.

In all fairness, this is an argument made by all sorts of people about all sorts of issues. One should be careful to avoid it if one wants to rest on sound logic, and one should become familiar with how it is used to avoid being mislead by others.

Nothing is ‘simple’ to the Thong boys, Linda. They’re sure to find ghosts and irrational rationalizations for every opposing post to their ridiculous scenarios. But they’re fun to pull out of Spam once in awhile for a few laughs.

Ok, so I have to admit, I had no idea about genetic defect rate, which makes me want ‘to google that sh!t.’ The biggest thing that I have against it is that it may be the same rate as that of a 40 y/o woman, but there are some major psychological upsets that happen with incest. There is usually a factor of some trauma, slight or not, happening in the formative years of a child’s life. Something is preventing the person(s) involved from forming the proper attachments to people outside of the family.
In the case of estranged siblings that find each other out of luck and sheer coincidence, have at it and go wild.

I know this response is most likely to be buried among whatever firestorm is going on above, but I still wanted to offer my perspective.

If two consenting adults wish to take part in a sexual relationship and they happen to be blood related then I don’t believe that the law should have any sway against them.

Perhaps the reason that people find this topic so cringe worthy is because when they hear the word they imagine a non consensual relationship like those that you listed above (like the parent child relationship). A child can not consent to a sexual relationship and that will (or at least should always) be condemned.

As a side note you also mentioned bestiality and that should also always be condemned because an animal can not consent to a sexual relationship of their own will.

“It’s a simple answer. Unless you have a seared conscience, incest is morally and psychologically wrong.”

Sounds like stuff I’ve heard people against homosexuality say. Two related consenting adults getting it on does not harm you in the slightest, yet you think its okay to throw them in jail? You are a monster. Why can’t you just mind your own business? :(

If two people want to have sex, it’s their business. End of discussion. You have no right to your the enforcement of your opinion upon them…so to speak. They can do as they please and you can suck a weeny. Get on with your life and stop worrying about people f*cking.

I’ve read the arguments above, not all sex leads to reproduction, so you can throw the retarded hunchback theory out the window. Normal unrelated people have retarded kids all the time, you don’t genetically test and force people apart right?
As far as quoting out of some ancient ridiculous religious manuscript, you show me one where incest is mentioned, but genocidal murder, slavery, and various other assorted condoned “moral” acts do not completely permeate the text and we can talk.

Idiots out there keep believing that their dusty little book is fkn real, they’re stories people. Get over it. Muhammad was a failed businessman who was a successful prophet ***lord ****phile. It’s in the Q’uran. He fkd a little girl.

The Xstians and Jews are no better off condoning blood sacrifice to atone for dirty thoughts give me a break. Who are the “religious” among us to cast judgement on who the rest of humanity rubs their genitals against.

Straw man attack – you are inaccurately portraying Tea Partiers as being 100% against all social programs and government intervention, when in reality they are merely against certain overly bloated, intrusive, costly and inefficient social programs and government meddling.

I’ve read the arguments above, not all sex leads to reproduction, so you can throw the retarded hunchback theory out the window. Normal unrelated people have retarded kids all the time, you don’t genetically test and force people apart right?

That was hilarious, Joe! Thanks for sharing!
Simon is Scotty’s proud Pappy. Their routine gig is, Scotty as the straight right wing intellectual wannabe and Pappy Simon as his comic relief side kick. Scotty has a penchant for bestiality in addition to his obsession with incest. It’s my understanding that Scotty boy likes to reckon himself as the Eastern Hemispheres version of Rush Limbaugh, or at least, an oriental shadow of Rush the Junkie thereof. He would consider the comparison a compliment. Sociopath’s of their nature love to hate, blame and slander anyone that questions their beliefs, motives and objectionable behavior. I like to drop in from time to time to see if anything’s improved or at least, changed but, as expected, they’re still predictably wallowing in their own puddle of self loathing without a clue. Enjoy!

any success in starting your own blog yet, robert? or no good for anything but trolling? found a stuck-in-the-mud-green-with-envy comrade at last? so few and far between, so you deserve each other! have a good hug..

Ah, so Simon is Scotty’s pappy. That puts the phrases “come unto the father” and “come unto the son” into a whole new dimension.

Thanks for the heads up Robert.

In all honesty, I thought this was another (well done) parody website satirizing right-wing evangelicals; the two are often hard to tell apart and unlike many other Christian blogs, Scott doesn’t appear to delete opinions contrary to his own (though he does censor profanity and hold up comments containing more than two links for moderation).

And your analysis is pretty much spot on. Scott appears to be the somber voice vainly trying to come up with rational arguments in support of his biased viewpoints, whereas Simon is just all out histrionics and ad homonym — it’s a humorous version of good cop/bad cop.

Then of course, there’s Zack T (Thong?) — a textbook case of someone who’s head is so far up his a$$ he has hasn’t seen sunshine in years.

Aha, Robert has found a new pal-in-misery-and-envy; what happened to the last one? Faded into such obscurity that I can’t remember his name. Congrats, you two guys (gays?), for finding each other. This blog, at least, helped you out.

I must say you fit each other. Both whine about ad hominems. Both attack and attack regardless of the issue. One regards himself so highly as a father that he suggests that he is a better father than God the father, and the other exudes hubris in everything he writes. A pathetic version good dung/bad dung.

Im imagining a world were incest is legal and moral. Well im guessing lots of people will start their sex life with the person closest to them. Hooking up with your sister at 16, making love at 17 getting married at 20, having babies, then getting a divorce at 23. Of course im being ironic, but hope it got the point across. If you ask me i think anyone should hump/love anyone as long as its consensual(cant be 100% perfectly sure its consensual to mate with your ladycow even if she lets you do it so i guess we should keep it human only). But we should try first figuring out how this kind of libertinage would shape our future society and what are the implications.

Ahhhhh Sooooo, Simon! And you are Scotty’s pappy! Now we know why Scotty is sooooo interested in incest and bestiality! You were his teacher, you nasty old monkey! Where did you hide the banana’s that you could not eat? Ahaaaaaa!

I’m a relativist that understands that some things are relative between individuals, others between societies, and others still between species.
Our species readily has sex with family members and has genetically inferior children when culture does not discriminate against it.

Like all life forms we strive toward an immortality of some sort it is logical that we do the best we can for our species children.

So there’s your logically consistent reason for why incestuous sex and marriage among consenting adults should be discriminated against. Though I’d like to add that discrimination within local consensual communities would be socially justifiable and preferable to discrimination by nations or states.

But like I point out in the post, if that is the reasoning then why not discriminate against women above 40 having children? Or people who are carriers or sufferers of genetic defects (colour blindness, Thalassemia)?

And what about sterile or non- reproducing individuals, such as two brothers, or a post-menopausal grandmother with her genetic grandson?

Ideology has consistently driven culture throughout history, but can not afford to be isolated from evidence or facts. The scientific community is small but as potent as there progress is true. Are you or aren’t you in pursuit of truth and justice?

I *am* in pursuit of truth and justice. It is in this pursuit that I note the constant sidelining and outright burying of truth, facts, and scientific evidence by the postmodern liberal in the name of furthering their ideology.

Lets be honest, distorting the truth is something people do in defense of a contentious ideology, new school or old. You admitted just the other day to exaggerating in order to make a point. This is not necessary. There is no reason that thousands of segregated ideologies should not coexist, from an evolutionary point of view there is good reason that this should be so.

They want to ban smoking because it is a (statistically proven) hazard to the health of self and (unproven) others, but want to promote homosexuality despite it being a statistically proven factor in the transmission of HIV/AIDS.

Scott, you may find that “liberals”, at least this one, doesn’t ‘support’ homosexuality so much as accepts the fact that it exists within society. We recognize a person’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We don’t make them our enemy based on someones opinion or delusions.
And Scott, HIV/AIDS is spread through heterosexual intercourse as well. You might want to brush up on your “pursuit of truth.”

Acknowledged that HIV/AIDS can be spread through heterosexual contact, or intravenous drug use, or even from mother to child and the very rare blood transfusion.

However that does not preclude the statistical facts that the male-male homosexuality is the cause of HIV infection for 72% of males (27,455 individuals surveyed), contributing to the HIV infection rate being highest among gay men – 60 times greater than the general population.

As a comparison, anyone can get lung cancer no matter how healthily they live – case in point ‘Godfather’ in Generation Kill. That does not preclude the fact that active smokers is statistically proven to increase the chances of getting lung cancer.

And to clarify my position on homosexuality – I hold it to be a personal matter that government should stay out, while maintaining that homosexuality is not permitted by JudeoChristianity. If ever I were to run for President of the USA (which I actually could, if only Obama would set a precedent for allowing non-natural born citizens to hold that office, natch), I would focus solely on jobs, the economy and foreign policy. Social policy I would leave to my successes in other aspects – cos if I’m right on the economy, hey doncha think my beliefs about social issues might be right too hint hint?

HIV infection is, by far, the most deadly STD, and considerably more scientific evidence exists regarding condom effectiveness for prevention of HIV infection than for other STDs. The body of research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing sexual transmission of HIV is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV has been scientifically established in “real-life” studies of sexually active couples as well as in laboratory studies.

As an agnostic I think that incest in itself isn’t wrong, but in certain cases it upsets me. I don’t think that incestuous couples with a high probability of producing a handicapped child (brother-sister, father-daughter, etc) should have children on the grounds that it’s inconsiderate to the child.

Now I can understand the argument saying it’s contradictory to let people with hereditary disease to have children in this case, and that’s right. However, I think all parents should strive to let the children they raise have BETTER lives than they had, and two healthy parents having a sick child knowingly is cruel and backward. It should definitely be a choice, but making your child suffer just to champion a right of yours is selfish.

I am an atheist and I stumbled upon this page when I typed “Why is incest wrong?” in Google. Personally, I don’t have any problems with incest, just as much as how I think bisexuality, homosexuality, asexuality etc. are fine as long as it is consensual. Everyone should be given a choice to lead the lives they want; not constrained by the society which is largely made up of a bunch of holier-than-thou hypocritical creatures. Moreover, the only problem with incest is the slightly higher potential genetics issue but not every child born from incest is afflicted with genetic disabilities. After all, even children born from non-related parents can have birth deformities. Genetics is just one of the causes, other things like nutritional diet and environment play major roles as well.

Mainly, I feel as though it’s more of a social taboo than it is of something “wrong” per say. And I guess it is also a biological reaction (to most people at least) to say “No, ew, what the f*ck, I would never do that with a father/mother/brother/etc …” Bestiality, is very different to homosexuality OR incest, because bestiality is without exception never consensual.

However, the bottom line is if you aren’t hurting anyone with what you are doing, I don’t care what you do. As long as you’re two consenting adults, who are perfectly aware of what you are doing and how it is going to affect your relationship not only with the other person, but also with the rest of your family.

Wow, this thread has been going on for three years? Anyway, I stumbled here somehow when I was Googling the Avengers movie, and I thought I’d leave my thoughts.

Scott, you say you want to know why atheists think incest is wrong. However, from what I’ve read in this thread (no, I didn’t read all the comments), most people have said they have no problem with incest. Certainly, no atheists I know are against it (although the subject doesn’t come up very often in conversation).

I think the question to ask then, is why are SOME atheists against incest? I think it boils down to a couple of simple points:

1) Due to the Westermarck Effect, most people don’t find their parents or siblings sexy. Thus, the idea of family sex is icky to most people, and some will even go so far as to say it’s wrong. Of course, if you think about it logically, there’s no correlation between yucky and immoral. I can say it’s disgusting to eat dog poop, but it’s not immoral, is it? I think a lot of people get into the mindset of “I would never do that or want it done to me because it’s gross” and forget that other people might not see things the same way. It’s pretty much the same deal with homosexuality.

2) Like you’ve mentioned, there’s some genetic downsides to inbreeding. When people think about incest, they think of poor disfigured Charles II and his family tree (http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/europe/Charles_II_Inbreeding.jpg). People in the 17th century really thought incest was a wonderful thing, but times changed and now there’s sort of a popular conception that all incestuous relationships will result in two-headed mutant babies. Of course, like you said, it’s not that bad in reality, and with better birth control and adoption it doesn’t have to be a problem at all. Not everybody know this however, and the public image against inbreeding is pretty strong. I think this is just a case of people not having all the facts.

3) Usually when incest is mentioned, someone will bring up sexual abuse. Lots of people think incest is immoral because they have the two confused! Stories show up in the news all the time about how a parent was caught molesting their child, and people think incest is all about that. Of course, it’s not. Incest, like any other kind of sexual behavior, can be consensual as well as involuntary. Most people don’t confuse straight sex with rape, but when it comes to sex they’d rather not be having, it’s usually thought of as involuntary.

4) There is strong social stigma against incest, and people who have incestuous relationships often try to cover them up. With this lack of visibility, lots of people go through their entire lives without ever really thinking about the morality of incest. However, this has been changing in recent years, as more people are coming out with their stories and informing the world. If you are interested in supporting sexual freedoms such as incest, I’m sure there are political groups out there you can look up!

So you see, there are plenty of reasons why someone may think incest is wrong, despite being a reasonable and non-religious person! Remember, it’s impossible for anyone to be completely informed about any subject. I think it’s best to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and to inform rather than accuse. Instead of saying, “Why are you against incest? You contradict yourself!” it may be more helpful to point out, “Your views may not be complete. Have you considered these facts?”

Sorry for the long post. I hope I’ve left you with some things to think about. Have a nice day!

Thanks for the thoughts Murderbot. True, incest is one of the many sexual taboos being broken. So the next question is, is it in society’s interests to break these taboos? What taboos next, bestiality or pedophilia?

There is much ground for interesting debate here, but I think the determining factor with sexual behavior, as well as with most human behavior, is consent. If all parties involved agree to the activity, and it doesn’t harm anyone else, then I don’t think there’s any basis for illegalization or denunciation of said activity.

Pedophilia is a tricky question, and one of the issues is whether or not a child can actually give consent. A child may enter a sexual relationship willingly, but the power dynamic between child/adult, as well as most children’s lack of experience in making life decisions, casts doubt on whether entering such a relationship takes advantage of the child. Of course, one may argue that some people, even as adults, never develop the emotional maturity necessary to make good sexual decisions, but that’s beside the point.

Historically and on average, acceptable marriage ages have been lower than they are today. The earliest age-of-consent law on record dates back to 1275 England, which set the legal age at 12. Today, the legal age in Yemen is 9. (As an interesting side note, cats and dogs become sexually active at 6 months).

To come to the point, the real question is when a human being becomes mature enough to make their own decisions. The age of criminal responsibility ranges between 6-12 in the United States. This is the age where children are held responsible for their own actions, and may be sent to jail. If a 12 year old child commits murder, is it right to punish them? If a 12 year old child wants to have sex, is it right to forbid them? I have no idea, and have never really thought about this before.

I’ve read the link you gave, and I have to warn in advance that my opinion is coloured by religious belief against taking of a life. At the same time, from a humanist and libertarian standpoint that assumes no God or divine law exists, I would have to judge both Meiwes and his victim/accomplice as acting within their independent rights and wishes.

I’ll swap a link with you too… This commentor claims his dogs voluntarily engage in sex with him. What say you?

If a dog cannot be presumed to be intelligent or self-aware enough to make ‘conscious’ decisions, what about dolphins or chimpanzees? After all, their intelligence level is said to be about that of a human child.

Honestly, incest isn’t wrong. As long as no child is born (only between parent or sibling), there is no problem. Incest is only illegal because of religious bigots who think it’s “immoral,” the social majority finding it nasty, or people clinging to the well put down scientific theroies that it damages the child. My question to people who are anti-incest is “Can you control who you love?” Incest is usually (for adults) 2 mature people wanting someone they care for. Is that to much to ask?

According to Christian fundamentalist tract publisher Jack Chick of Chick Publications, “asking Jesus to turn your life around” grants a father who raped his daughter instant forgiveness, with no inconvenient penalties or prison time — apparently neither his spouse nor the Christian paediatrician who discovers the case of herpes the man passed on to his daughter deem it necessary to report child abuse to local authorities — because after all, when you have Jesus in your heart, you receive a get out of jail free card.

I feel, and i stress again on “I feel”, that incest is morally wrong but homosexuality isn’t because incest includes people related to us. And why is having sex with someone related to you wrong, even if it is consensual? Because we should understand other form of relationship as well, relationship where there is feeling of love, protection, responsibility without any sort of sexual desires. Homosexuality or heterosexuality refers to our attraction to the same sex or the opposite one, it is because of the hormones in our body. So we cant choose to which sex will be attracted, but we sure can choose to whom we will be attracted(and over here, by attracted I mean purely the desire to have sex”). I mean, what type of brains do we have, when we have no control over our animal instincts. That is where the whole “moral” point kicks in right? If cheating during an exam is wrong, even if the person I am cheating from is okay with it, I guess incest falls in the same criteria.

In the “short term”, in a society where 98% of people have not birthed incest children…

The likelyhood of complications is not significant.

However, assume 25% of the population inbreed, “long term”.

The likelyhood of complication will return to 80% losses and genetic ailments will now be commonality, “100%” in your “incest family, clan, breed, new-race.”

That is what killed ALL lesser races. Most canables, ostrich-people, islanders, and non-homosapiens of the past.

What helped form the most viable races, was resistance to the paternal desire of same-same pharamones. Even monkeys have this now, like us in the past, they once did not have that, which led to the varried races of monkies within similar families.

As for the “sociality” of it… We, driven on a subconcious level, “know” it is bad, by the signals we get. However, some people are not born with such strong resistance, or have greater ignorance. (Not talking about concious ignorance, talking about chemical and psycological subconcious ignorance. The same thing that tells some people to run into danger.)

Those 2%, as statistics show, are only 2%, due to continued agreement of it being “bad”, or unacceptable, or feeling wrong, and having the power to resist that urge. It will never be less than 2%, as that is roughly the level of “adaptation” which pot-mixing results in. That is roughly the speed at which humans “evolve”, which involves evolving backwards and forwards at the same time.

Is it wrong? Well, wrong and right are “man-made” things, and society determines that answer. Personal belief is only a fraction of society. We can’t answer that for you, and it doesn’t matter, unless you are commiting incest.

Should it be legal? Well, it should not be illegal, in my opinion, but it should not be made legal. (Taking it out of law does not make it legal, it just makes it personally judged. Making it legal is different, that is saying “Do it”, or, “It is safe”, and thus, not punishable in any form.) However, at some point, it should be, will be, punishable again, if the result leads, as it will, to massive birth deaths and severe unafordable genetic disorders, which complicate you, your child, and society, who picks-up the final tab when you fail.

Gay sex, and animal sex, does not result in much of a society TAB. With the exception of casual-sex, among same sexes, which results in faster spreading of disease, since they are not having sex for birth, but simply because they can, and not get pregnant, thus, greater majority casualness. (Which was the first reason it was banned, thousands of years ago. However, due to people being less stupid, and aware, and having internet access… not relying on sly-jerk to inform them of the “Joys of sex”… disease is not, will not, be much of an issue, unlike genetic disorders, which can not be controlled by information and knowledge.)

I say, make consentual provisions…

Give free birth-control to those consentual persons, who are of legal age. Imprison those who just RAPE, as rape is rape, and child molesting is rape, as a child can not rightfully “concent”, to such a future damning stigmata, such as incest or sex.

As for society… judging… that is thier right, just as it is your right not to provoke society by making a global announcement of your illicit activities, where you know it is unacceptable. Stop telling people, or deal with the responses they give, which you asked for. We don’t have to accept it, just as we don’t have to like peanut-butter and ants, like you do.

I can’t speak for anybody else, of course (and I’m not an Atheist) but I personally have no problem with consensual sex between two individuals over the age of consent, regardless of relationship. Obviously children need to be protected from abuse and any form of non-consensual sex should be illegal, but the government and laws should butt out of the bedrooms of consenting adults.

*Any* kind of sex between consenting adults should be legal, regardless of relationship, age, race or gender.

You also mentioned bestiality. I believe this should remain illegal as an animal cannot give consent, any more than a child can.

You cannot force an animal to work if it doesn’t want to. For example, you can hook a horse up to a cart, but you cannot [i]make[/i] it walk. Unless, of course, you whip it, which would come under animal cruelty laws (and thus, not allowed). In thew few cases where animal labour [i]is[/i] enforced (take rodeos for example), I believe it ought to be illegal.

Killing an animal for pleasure (i.e. trophy hunting etc) is murder and should be punished in the same way as murdering a human. There does need to be an exception in the law to allow for the killing of animals for food and clothing as we are not yet technically advanced enough to produce nutritionally sound synthetic meat. However, these animals must be killed humanely. Any unnecessary cruelty to animals should be punished in the same way as similar crimes against humans.

I don’t understand why one must be religious to have morals? I do not believe in God, yet I live my life to a high moral standard. Why? Because its what FEELS right and good. I “do the right thing” because that’s what I would want someone to do for me. I believe in “helping your fellow man”, not because I could get a reward of heaven in the end but because it makes me feel good at night to know I have done good.

Doing good spreads, and others do good. What would our world be if we were all immoral and had no values? Not one us would be alive that’s for sure. At the end of the day you have to live with the decisions you’ve made, if incest doesn’t disturb your psyche, than go for it.

Should you have an incestuous relationship with a minor, of course not! Why? Because it’s wrong. Why is it wrong? Not because a book told you it’s wrong, because you shouldn’t take advantage of someone who does not have the capacity to know the long term consequences of their actions. Believe they do? Look it up, your brain is not fully developed until are almost 25 years old. You can not accurately understand the long term consequences of what you do before then.

Would I participate in incest? No I wouldn’t. Why? Because the idea makes me feel icky. My family is my family, not my lovers. Even if by sheer miracle I would become attracted to someone in my family, the idea of breaking the bond we hold is enough for me. Sex complicates things, it changes relationships, that’s one of the reasons your family bonds can grow so strong, they aren’t complicated by sex. To worry if your family was cheating on you, felt differently about you because of your weight gain, wished you’d get a boob job, just not how I would want to live.

There is a trust that exist with your family, an understanding that they wouldn’t do certain things because of their love. Their love is different than the love of a lover or partner. We love many people in many different ways. I love many of my friends and also would never have sex with them.

Point made, I affirm that I do not understand how one can be so dramatic as to say that atheists are hypocrites for having morals or values. Sometimes being a good person is about doing what feels right, and treating people well because if you were in that situation you would want them to treat you well. If not one us helped each other, there wouldn’t be any “us” would there?

Perhaps your idea that atheists are hypocrites for having morals and values would better be directed at why so many religious people are suppose to have them but make every exception in the book not to except for the 2 hours they go to church on Sunday.

Lastly, who the hell points out people for having morals and values only to argue that its wrong? Shouldn’t we be spreading good deeds instead of attacking people who try to live a good life so when they die they can look back and feel good about themselves.

P.S. I was taught right and wrong years before I was introduced to the concept of God.

I don’t understand why one must be religious to have morals? I do not believe in God, yet I live my life to a high moral standard. Why? Because its what FEELS right and good. I “do the right thing” because that’s what I would want someone to do for me.

Noted, but actually the argument usually put forward is not that non-religious people cannot have morals. Rather, it is that the morals of non-religious people are relatvie – that is, as you say yourself, ‘what FEELS right and good’.

Hence, what if someone FEELS that it is right and good to kill women who sleep around? To his twisted mind, that is what they really want him to do, in order to wash away the dishonor they bring to their families.

Okay, maybe one guy who FEELS that is a psycho… How about an entire continent of people who think the same way? Is it so easy to say they are WRONG, since your criteria is that what is right and good is by FEELING?

Hence, morality becomes relative – because we are all ‘equal’ (we are all merely humans), no one has the right to say their idea of morality is more correct than anyone else’s.

I affirm that I do not understand how one can be so dramatic as to say that atheists are hypocrites for having morals or values.

If you read my post properly, I am not saying that.

What I am saying is that atheists claim to support this and that set of moral values, based on logic and humanism. For example, some support homosexuality because ‘two consenting adults should be allowed to do what they want if it doesn’t hurt anyone’.

So I raise examples of atheists feeling disgusted by, and even supporting the outlawing of, various other scenarios:

I then point out that they are hypocrites, not because they have morals, but because they do not apply the same logic on homosexuality (consenting adults) to the above scenarios.

A fair number of self-declared atheists admit that yes, they find such things distasteful. Others say, if it doesn’t hurt anyone, go ahead.

Perhaps your idea that atheists are hypocrites for having morals and values would better be directed at why so many religious people are suppose to have them but make every exception in the book not to except for the 2 hours they go to church on Sunday.

well, lots of anti-religion blogs do that already.

And plenty of religious leaders scold their congregations for not living holy lives.

Lastly, who the hell points out people for having morals and values only to argue that its wrong? Shouldn’t we be spreading good deeds instead of attacking people who try to live a good life so when they die they can look back and feel good about themselves.

Uh, how about atheists who launch polemics against religious beliefs?

For example. Christians have morals and values and try to live a good life. Atheists take glee in criticizing and attacking them.

“Would I participate in incest? No I wouldn’t. Why? Because the idea makes me feel icky. My family is my family, not my lovers. Even if by sheer miracle I would become attracted to someone in my family, the idea of breaking the bond we hold is enough for me. Sex complicates things, it changes relationships, that’s one of the reasons your family bonds can grow so strong, they aren’t complicated by sex. To worry if your family was cheating on you, felt differently about you because of your weight gain, wished you’d get a boob job, just not how I would want to live.

There is a trust that exist with your family, an understanding that they wouldn’t do certain things because of their love. Their love is different than the love of a lover or partner. We love many people in many different ways. I love many of my friends and also would never have sex with them.”

So you would be perfectly fine with preventing other consenting adults from having incestous relationships and getting married because you wouldn’t like it, yet it is wrong for other people to be against homosexual sex and marriage because they don’t like it.

It is amazing how blind people are to their own hypocrisy.

I wonder how much longer it will be until everyone who thinks incest and polygamy are morally wrong are labeled as intolerant bigots.

I am atheist. Consensual incest is not morally wrong! The reason people recoil in horror or feel the need to tell everybody within earshot how disgusted they find it is because the have been programmed to react that way like mindless robots.

Just because a person doesn’t suffer from the mental illness of religion doesn’t mean he or she hasn’t been mentally damaged by taboo programming.

Taboos themselves are a form of mental illness and they are inflicted upon everybody from birth. For some reason I don’t suffer from any and there is no consensual, harmless activity I find revolting or feel the need to condemn.

People who talk about the love between family members as “pure” are suffering from the delusion that sex is dirty. Sharing your body with someone you love is the ultimate expression of love and if both people are emotionally mature it won’t be “complicated”.

Finally. Why incest is illegal? Because the vast majority of people are mentally damaged either by religion and/or taboos and they are the ones who write the laws.

Scott, Scott, Scott. I’m sure a million Mexicans or more have extra-biblical sources that mention the name Jesus as well. It doesn’t mean they’re all the son of God. And I am sure this person has played his important role in history, evidently. I did not say he didn’t exist, I said “…no physical evidence of his time on Earth exists other than the stories written by four men…” but I’ll stand corrected if it pleases you, he being mentioned in third persons.

“For me, the mechanism of evolution has yet to be demonstrated.” Well, for me, all I need to do is go look in a mirror and it all becomes very clear. Though I don’t exactly resemble an ape, regardless of what my wive says; nor what Darwin attempted to explain concerning the earliest of humans, “ape like creatures”.

Revisit old comment by Robert..

It seems to me Robert was somehow frustrated because he failed to convince Scott to believe in Darwin “ape-like” Evolution…after he tried his very best!

Perhaps…Robert didn’t realize that..I feel the same..to convince him about the existence of God!

Theists (people like me..(and Scott as well?..failed in our efforts to convince people (unbelievers/atheists/agnostics etc..)

The argument that morality can only be derived from “God” as an absolute authority is fallacious. The study of ethics address explanations surrounding the foundations of morality. Simply because you have not picked up a book to open your mind to different, logical explanations of the roots of morality, does not automatically make it black and white (Either absolute or non-existent)

Actually another commentor convinced me awhile back that theoretically absolute morality in practise becomes relative morality, due to having to be filtered through the relativistic cognitive biases of ordinary humans.

But since we’re here, why don’t you give us noobs a quick explanation of how absolute morality arises without any source that claims itself to be absolute (e.g. God)?

Incest changes roles of family members. There is a difference in the power dynmaic between a parent and child which continues into adulthood. So the child, even reaching adulthood could not give informed and free consent as it is between two equal partners. There is also the problem of sexual conflict between family members. If the relationship goes bad, you not only lose your wife, but your son who took your wife from you. There is a possibility of the adult grooming the kid until it reaches legal age. It was said eariler that incest was an orientation like homosexuality. That isn’t so. A gay male is attracted to someone because it’s another male. Likewise, a straight male will be attracted because it’s a woman. An incestuous person will not be attracted just because it’s a family member, but primarily attracted because of maleness or femaleness. They have many more options for sexual attraction and interaction outside the family.

The bit about incestuousness being fundamentally different from homosexuality strikes me as somewhat contrived. Attraction is attraction – if attraction to individuals sharing similar gender is genetically determined and involuntary, then who is to say that attraction to individuals sharing similar genetic makeup (or dogs, or rubber boots, or bondage) is not also genetically determined and involuntary?

I understand your point about attraction being attraction. However, I’d say what makes a heterosexual or homosexual orienation different is the fact that the fomer can not be attracted to the same sex and the latter won’t be attracted to the other sex. These are the fundamental roots of human sexuality for those persons. Everything else follows from that. The incest inclined will be attracted outside of the family.

Just for the sake of argument, there might be incestuous couples who claim that they have no other source that provides the same intensity or nuance of attraction. Yes, they can be turned on by individuals other than their own blood relatives – but even heterosexuals can be turned on by sexual imagery featuring the same gender as themselves.

And of course, they can simply argue that it is unethical to take away their own, true love…

I don’t have a problem with the act of concensual incest between two adults, my only concerns lie with the increased risk of genetic disorders, such as a autosomal recessive disorder, that may occur if a pregenancy results. I really don’t think religious views really should come into play. My only concern is the possible dangers to the health of any offspring.

By the way, I am not an atheists, but I respect everyone’s right to their own beliefs and opinions as long as they don’t try to force them off on me. I am a pagan and I do believe in Jesus Christ. Yes, I tend to really p*ss off Christians.

Thanks so much for giving everyone an exceptionally wonderful possiblity to discover important secrets from this site. It’s usually so nice and as well , full of amusement for me personally and my office acquaintances to visit your web site at least thrice in a week to read the newest things you will have. And indeed, I am just usually happy with your wonderful tactics you serve. Selected 4 facts in this posting are surely the most effective we have all ever had.

“Then the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.” Gen. 19:31-35

Lot did it….and it’s in the bible…so let’s just say im a christian man….and I have 2 daughters….and it’s the end of the world…..i can sleep with them?

No, because sex with close relations is prohibited by Mosaic law, Jesus’ definition of marriage and warning against adultery as being any sexuality outside marriage, and multiple New Testament injunctions. Besides, Lot was inebriated at the time and the resultant offspring went on to become evil enemies of Israel.

Just because it’s in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s approved. Basic common sense. Rejecting God is in the Bible too, you think that makes it a recommendation? Saul killed himself by falling on his own sword, that’s in the Bible, you wanna try that?

You aren’t the first to try this stunt, not by a long shot. Sooo, any better attempts wise guy?

Besides, Lot was inebriated at the time and the resultant offspring went on to become evil enemies of Israel.

This was also addressed (in the same thread, no less), and you never did respond. But here’s the real test of your convictions: Would you be amenable to that line of reasoning in a modern court of law? Or would you maintain that the power hierarchy inherent to a parent-child relationship makes such a defence untenable?

Just because it’s in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s approved. Basic common sense.

When God says “be fruitful and multiply” to the only couple (or couples, in Noah’s case) residing on earth, then common sense dictates that incest was not only condoned, but prescribed and commanded. If incest is later forbidden (for whatever reason) that makes God a moral relativist.

Unless Saul died three times, they can’t all be correct. Nonetheless, I’m entirely confident you’ll produce a “just so” explanation to smooth over the glaring contradictions contained only chapters apart within the very same book.

And as I responded back then, they fall under the purview of Lev 18:6 and Lev 18:17.

I mean, “You cannot do the daughter of the woman you do,” how much more specific do you want prohibiting doing your own biological offspring? Lot’s unwitting case clearly falls under that.

Noted that nonbiological adoption would not fall under that, but then, Woody Allen and Morgan Freeman.

This was also addressed (in the same thread, no less), and you never did respond.

I thought I had responded somewhere, but I guess I didn’t?

Basically, what does the Heroes of Faith refer to? It refers to Heroes of Faith. It doesn’t talk about Heroes of Justice or Courage or Self-Sacrifice or Morality or whatever upstanding secular value you want to look for.

Which is also kind of a point – all have sinned and fallen short, but what counts is a spirit of faith and repentance. Contrary to Islam’s “All prophets are sinless”, in Christianity only Jesus was perfect and sinless.

Noah was a drunk
Abraham was too old
Isaac was a daydreamer
Jacob was a liar
Leah was ugly
Joseph was abused
Moses had a stuttering problem
Gideon was afraid
Samson had long hair and was a womanizer
Jeremiah and Timothy were too young
David had an affair and was a murderer
Elijah was suicidal
Isaiah preached naked
Jonah ran from God
Naomi was a widow
Job went bankrupt
Peter denied Christ
The Disciples fell asleep while praying
Martha worried about everything
The Samaritan woman was divorced, more than once
Zaccheus was too small
Paul was too religious
Timothy had an ulcer..AND
Lazarus was dead!

And Lot was a worldly (he moved from outside the city to inside it), a coward, a lousy dad (not just offering his daughters up, but the kind of values he ingrained in them) and a drunkard. But his faith was shown in that he quit the city on merely the word of angels.

Would you be amenable to that line of reasoning in a modern court of law? Or would you maintain that the power hierarchy inherent to a parent-child relationship makes such a defence untenable?

When we start talking at length about legalistic rules, there is the danger of melding the various contexts of each part of the comment.

So firstly, OT Mosaic laws for Jews are not really transposable to modern secular (with Christian roots) settings. That having been said, sexual relations between a man and his biological daughter is probably not kosher. Whereas as I said above, sexual relations with an adopted, non-biological daughter don’t seem to be prohibited.

If Lot’s specific case were transposed to modern times, his lawyer might advise him to press charges against his daughters for nonconsensual sex (akin to date rape via intoxication).

As for what I would be amenable to, it should adhere to the following generalities rather than OT specifics:

When God says “be fruitful and multiply” to the only couple (or couples, in Noah’s case) residing on earth, then common sense dictates that incest was not only condoned, but prescribed and commanded. If incest is later forbidden (for whatever reason) that makes God a moral relativist.

Some would call it ‘Progressive Revelation’.

I have responded before that in the case of post-Fall and by extension post-flood, sin not having as strong an effect on genetic deterioration yet would preclude the genetic defects reason for avoiding incest. Living for centuries would mean that a family member you last met 400 years ago, and who went on to grow and change, is as good as a complete stranger relationally. God could also have made more people, without it being specifically stated in the Bible.

Heck, if you want to go all fringe theory, angels could have come down to add genetic diversity, ref Nephilim.

Unless Saul died three times, they can’t all be correct. Nonetheless, I’m entirely confident you’ll produce a “just so” explanation to smooth over the glaring contradictions contained only chapters apart within the very same book.

Read deeper.

a) Saul committed suicide by falling on his own sword. This is the actual happening.

b) Read also 2 Samuel 4:9-10. The Amalekite was likely lying in order to gain David’s favor, knowing that Saul hadn been out for David’s blood.

c) Saul was struck down by the Philistines – their archers ‘wounded him critically’. Saul merely cheated them of the final death blow. It’s a language thing (which as I know you always have gripes about) – to paraphrase Josh McDowell: If I say Hitler invaded Europe, do you take me to mean he did it all by his lonesome? Well France maybe, but surely not Russia!

Despite your attempts to ignore evidence (after all religion is “faith” , the antithesis of facts and evidence), to put it simply “there is definitely good biology behind the laws that prohibit brothers and sisters from having children”.

I could provide the citations and evidence, but if you wanted it, you would have googled it.

Or as I stated in this post, how about two brothers? They can’t have genetic offspring right? So no problem?

Or first cousins, which I also stated in this post, incestuous reproduction between first cousins has a genetic defect rate of around 1.7 to 2.8% extra – as low as that of an ordinary 40-year old woman having children. So you gonna ‘ignore evidence’ and allow those horrible middle-aged women to have genetically-at-risk babies?

So do you object to the above examples, and if you do, then why?

If you object but have no good reason, congratulations, you are a slave to ‘the antithesis of facts and evidence’. If you don’t object, then be honest and say it loud that YOU SUPPORT INCEST AS LONG AS THERE ISN’T ANY IMPREGNATION.

The christian life of rules against such disgusting acts seems a lot more attractive now. I can c why the God of the bible destroyed sodom and gomorra if they all thought “well hey there is no god so lets all party have bum sex and screw our sisters and brothers and mothers and fathers and children and goats”. seriously think about what u pple r saying and how perverse u all r becoming. Go to church and learn from moral righteous men and woman u dnt have to believe in God but u can learn and develop some strong ethical values and develop friendships and maybe meet a girl who is not ur sister. The west is built on biblical principals do not be so quick to dismiss them just because you do not believe in a deity.

By the way, Peter said Lot was a righteous man. So does the Old Testament law stil apply, or not? One person seems to be saying no, but “probably” yes in the case of incest. Isn’t that a little contrived? There are non-religious arguments against incest. There is the power differential between family members, even between siblings. It’s the same reasoning that says a therapist shouldn’t have sex with a patient, a professor shouldn’t have sex with a student, nor an employer with an employee, nor a clergyperson with a parishoner. This is why in the Lot in court scenario courts in the U.S. would still find Lot guilty, because it’s been recognized that a parent is always in the role of parent and a child is always in the role of child. It’s that power hierarchy which extends even into adulthood, and children are still entitled to protection after age 18 or 21. The relationship was never, and will never be, an equal one. Also, there is such a thing as an ex-lover, but not an ex-family member. If the relationship breaks up you have probably lost not just a lover, but must deal with the famiy connection as well.

Wait, did you totally miss the part where Lot was made stone drunk by the daughters?

Pretty sure in a modern court of law, that would make the daughters the defendants for rape (sex and consent under the influence).

Lot is mentioned as righteous for his putting God first and as a hero of faith for believing God’s instruction to leave Sodom without any evidence. He is by no means a perfectly moral person – which is the point, the faith of fallible people justifies them through mere belief in Jesus’ promise.

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but, in the constitution, does it not state something about the law and religion staying separate and not making laws based on religion? There for as far as I am concerned, religious arguments are moot.

The truth of the matter is, there is no good reason for incest to be illegal. Birth defects? Well, it is scientifically proven that certain people or couples are more prone to birth defects, but they are legally allowed to reproduce, so that argument is also moot.

It is not natural? “This argument must, like cancers and earthquakes, disappear from our planet. Cancers and earthquakes, by the way, are also natural. The philosopher Julian Baggini has correctly said that something being natural tells us no more about its moral property than if you said something was red. Good and bad things are natural, so not everything that is natural is good (or bad).” ~Tauriq Moosa

It hurts families? Well, as Scott stated, so does devorce, as well as abuse, and even moving across the country. These are all legal, so again, moot.

It is wrong? Why? Was anyone hurt? No. Was anyone embarassed? No. Was anyone negatively affected by the actions? No. MOOT.

It is gross? Well, I happen to think artificial coconut is quite gross, but the stores continue to sell it. That is all relative and a matter of opinion. No solid facts there.

There is no reason it should still be illegal aside from the majority of the population can not think for themselves long enough to realize this.

I would just like to say two things.Homosexuality and incest are not even in the same league.You’re either gay or you’re not.Your sexuality isn’t something you choose.I’m bisexual and you wont believe how many times people think I’m making it up or should just pick a side.
Incest is choosing -that’s the main word-to engage in sexual relations with a family member.Its a conscious decision.As to why it is morally wrong the answer is simple..
I love how everyone keeps talking about adult consensual siblings living their lives.But their actions impact someone very important-their family.Assume two siblings decide to have a relationship.What about their other siblings.Can you imagine how awkward things will be for them.By being in a sexual relationship that couple will isolate their family members resulting in family relations becoming weakened.For me your siblings are those few people who you can always rely on to be there for you why would you risk something so sacred.
and what if this amazing couple has a horrible breakup.Remember over 50% marriages end in divorce.Should the family pick sides?And more importantly can they?
Consensual adults can do anything they want as long as they don’t attempt to destroy someone else’s right.Everyone has a right to a safe and happy home and a family who they fit in and can rely on.Incest obliterates that.

Incest is choice? Listen to what you are saying. Doesn’t it sound just like all those people who think you’re making up being bisexual and think you can just choose your sexual attractions? Not being incestuously attracted yourself, can you really judge and say that incest is a choice – not a predetermined attraction like your bisexuality?

And if you want to talk about the impact of adult incestuous couples on the family, what about the impact on the family of homosexuals? How many families rights have been destroyed by incest as opposed to homosexuality? Aren’t the concerns of both families equally valid?

And on marriage breakups… Do you know the statistics for homosexual pairing breakups or cheating? Not to mention debilitating diseases and emotionally crippling actions? They are here.

Michelle, are you against people of different ethnicities having sex? Afterall, they could choose someone of their own ethnicity, and being with someone of a different ethnicity could upset other family members. And what if someone lives in a very religious family that does not approve of gay marriage? They shouldn’t marry someone of the same sex since it would upset the family, right?

Just admit it – you are a “bigot.” I’ve always found it hypocritical how LGBT activists flip out when you mention incest, like it’s okay for them to be bigoted against sexual relationships that they don’t like, but everyone else must believe gay sex is super awesome.
.

So the purpose of the post is to expose total atheist hypocrisy? Interesting. Annoying that it has a presumptious tone, leading readers to believe that you think all of us are unaware of HUMANITY’S (not ATHEIST) inherent flaws ( irrational thinking, impulsiveness).

Accusing atheists for hypocritically believing something even though obviously just a portion of atheists believes it, as if you did not understand the principle of intelligent diversity in a largely populated world, exposes the lack of logos and the emphasis on ad hominem. You are implying that atheism is just as “unreasonable” as religion, when the real issue is that some ATHEISTS CAN be unreasonable. Even if you weren’t attacking atheism as a whole, you are still just pointing out the obvious-regardless of religion, people’s moral beliefs can be unreasonable. The individual atheist’s moral beliefs are seperate from the fundamental disbelief of God. So the way you direct your argument to defame atheism and atheistic logic is flawed; you are really just criticizing humanity itself!

The level of intelligence you display and the conflicting amount of illogic demonstrated with this post’s flawed purposes tells me your emotion and bias is driving this argument, not logic. I honestly came on the internet, googling “incest is not wrong” to find a great argument posted on this interesting blog. I liked it, until the post slowly revealed itself to be bashing and extremely offensive. It seemed to be defending the innocent, incestuous minority- but you ironically end up utilizing them as a vehicle to hate on another group. This post does not help either side of the moral “argument” between atheists and christians/other religions, it only fuels the flames because in the end, this comes off not as intellectual curiosity but as pure hatred.

Did you mean for it to come off this way? Because I feel sick to my stomach after reading this. I feel that you’re probably a funny, intelligent guy. So it’s hard for me to comprehend the reasoning behind posting this when there’s an obvious answer to your questions.

Accusing atheists for hypocritically believing something even though obviously just a portion of atheists believes it, as if you did not understand the principle of intelligent diversity in a largely populated world, exposes the lack of logos and the emphasis on ad hominem.

You are implying that atheism is just as “unreasonable” as religion, when the real issue is that some ATHEISTS CAN be unreasonable. – Anon1

Okay, I apologize for not littering my post with legalese qualifiers like ‘some atheists’ or ‘certain individuals who are irreligious’ or ‘basing on current American law’.

This post does not help either side of the moral “argument” between atheists and christians/other religions, it only fuels the flames because in the end, this comes off not as intellectual curiosity but as pure hatred.

Since I’m already guilty of ad hominem, might as well throw in another one – Tu quoque!

I DO finde it hypocritical when someone is pro-gay yet acts like they’re against incest, or beastiality, or sadomasochism. Why just stop at homosexuality? Why NOT go full-gammut with this sexual liberalism, . .. or just shut up about it entirely ?

Charlie, sexual preference is an individuals prerogative. Don’t make the same mistake this Con, Scott and other Cons make by pigeon holing groups of people and attempting to associate them with other behavioral tendencies. It is foolish.

I’m an atheist who is shocked at the bigotry in regards to incest. I mean, people (other athiests/agnostics) are free to find it gross, but to go a step further and think that it should be illegal is asinine. Every time I’ve had a discussion with people about incest, I always see a reply of this type: “It’s just wrong. I don’t even have an argument why, but it just is”. That’s almost literally what people have said.

Anyway, Scott, it’s no surprise that atheists think irrationally. That’s what humans do… on an egregiously frequent basis! It’s just that atheists have irrational thoughts about issues other than God/religion. (Not that atheists can’t think irrationally about religion, but you know what I mean).

Religion is of no relevance here. Mentioning atheists in such a manner is pointless, and seems ignorant and intellectually inadequant when the subject regards something of sexual origins and of human relationships, not of philosophical or religious origins. However, I do very much agree with your post, and have been accepting of incest for a long period.

Most people see incest as for instance a cruel father raping and abusing their child, and are unable to see the topic in question another way. I’m also very glad that you used facts to present your viewpoint.

Alright, Scott. I am not an atheist, but I’m not a christian either. I value science and medical evidence.

Here is what I know:
1) Incest and homosexuality are entirely different things. Just because the two might intermix in this particular instance does NOT make them comparable.
2) There is a medical justification for homosexuality. The gay gene has been discovered, there is no known justification in science for incest.
3) There is no medical backlash for homosexuality. Unless you count AIDS which I don’t because it does not exclusively effect homosexuals. There is, however, outstanding medical backlash for incest. I don’t don’t just mean in prospective children. Some medical studies show that incest can actually cause dangerous levels of codependency in the incestuous couple, an inability to function independently, and sometimes violent jealously that leads to domestic abuse. None of these things are the markers of a healthy relationship.

When reading about couples who are incestuous, I have noticed certain things: they claim that it is the purest, truest, deepest kind of love and yet when they discuss when it began, most times that I have seen either the narrator or the person they are having the affair with will have been younger than sixteen when it began. As a matter of fact, I just read an account from one woman who said that she and her son have a an incestuous relationship that started when he was eleven years old and she couldn’t seem to understand how that was statutory rape, even if he did consent as an adult.

Thanks to social taboos and societal norms, it is hard to find any information on the subject through the internet that is not saturated in personal opinions. From what I could find, however, there is no medical reason why people commit incest and that, by its very definition, is why it continues to be seen as a defect. And rightfully so. That’s not even a personal opinion; if something in medicine can’t be explained medically, than it is a scientific misnomer. And if the medical evidence around it is more negative than positive, than it SHOULD be treated as a defect until studies can prove otherwise.

On a personal note, this hyper-liberal bullshit needs to stop. Every time I get on the damn internet the world is either one step closer to 1984 or Brave new World and neither of those books had a particularly happy ending. Hyper-liberalism is just as bad as being a hyper-conservative, if not worse.
I personally like having rules in my society. I like reasonable restrictions, I like taboos. I think people are so freaking concerned with being PC that they forget that its okay to have negative opinions about things. And I am allowed to have a negative opinion of incest because nothing in medicine says that I should have a positive one. And in the end, science wins every damn time.

2) There is a medical justification for homosexuality. The gay gene has been discovered, there is no known justification in science for incest

Once upon a time, the ‘gay gene’ hadn’t been discovered yet. Who is to say there won’t be an ‘incest gene’ discovered sometime? Would you have any valid objections to incest then?

After all, if heterosexual vs homosexual attraction is 100% genetically determined, then ALL sexual attraction should also be 100% genetically determined… Right? Then discriminating against ‘something people are born with and cannot change’ would be bigotry, yes? Just as the homosexual claims ‘I can’t help that I like guys rather than girls’, the incestuous can claim ‘I can’t help being irresistably attracted to individuals with 25% or more shared genetic material as me’.

There is no medical backlash for homosexuality. Unless you count AIDS which I don’t because it does not exclusively effect homosexuals. There is, however, outstanding medical backlash for incest.

Of course HIV/AIDS does not exclusively affect homosexuals. Why, homosexual men are onlyat 60 times greater risk for HIV/AIDS than the general populace, only 44 times higher rate than men in general, and the source of only 72% of HIV/AIDS infections among men.

And only 33-50 times higher rate and only an 870% increase over 10 years for syphilis.

No medical backlash there!

/sarc

————————-

I don’t don’t just mean in prospective children. Some medical studies show that incest can actually cause dangerous levels of codependency in the incestuous couple, an inability to function independently, and sometimes violent jealously that leads to domestic abuse. None of these things are the markers of a healthy relationship.

When reading about couples who are incestuous, I have noticed certain things: they claim that it is the purest, truest, deepest kind of love and yet when they discuss when it began, most times that I have seen either the narrator or the person they are having the affair with will have been younger than sixteen when it began.

Funny how this sounds very much like how young teens or boys ‘discovered’ they were homosexual after being groomed by older men.

And would you object to this case where the two had never met before, and can’t possibly have children that are genetically descended from both of them (apart from, you know, both of them sharing some of the same genes in the first place due to being blood relatives)

————————–

Hyper-liberalism is just as bad as being a hyper-conservative, if not worse.
I personally like having rules in my society. I like reasonable restrictions, I like taboos.

That is actually quite a sensible position, but indefensible from a relativistic moral standpoint. After all, who is to say that your level of ‘reasonable’ is correct for society – as opposed to say, the guy who says only heterosexuality is right, or the girl who says past zoophilia is where we draw the line? Everyone has their own standard and definition of ‘sensible’.

I suppose you could try and justify your own personal preferences through some purportedly objective factor…

And in the end, science wins every damn time.

Well, there it is then.

But I should caution that ‘science’ is very often not as clear cut and indisputable. People can reach totally opposite conclusions from the same data set.

In this, I am not saying that ‘aboslute truth and facts’ doesn’t exist… I am merely observing that though they exist, people will argue till the end of civilization about what they are. New scientific discoveries being made will further complicate (not conclude!) matters.

————————–

Forgive me if I have been over snarky. My point in all of the above is not to defend or condone incest… It’s merely to make one think about the danger of hypocrisy and double standards involved in supporting only homosexuality among the very many sexual preferences that do not (yet) have societal acceptance.